close
因為星期四、五都要去練開車，星期五早上又要跟嘉華去辦港簽，所以我打算今天就把片子看完、拿去還。早上自己看完「心靈偵探社」（I Heart Huckabees，2004），由David O Russell導演（在批踢踢，大家都對他推崇倍至，認為和查理考夫曼同世代的Russell是最有才華的新秀導演之一。他上一部作品是「奪寶大作戰」）、Jason Schwartzman、 Isabelle Huppert、Dustin Hoffman、Jude Law、Naomi Watts等人主演。之所以想看這部片，一方面因為有Jude Law，一方面因為Barny似乎挺喜歡它的。看完後我很困惑，感覺它就像查理考夫曼的那部「變腦」，探討很多哲學的東西，但故事發展得很快，我的腦筋實在跟不太上。
故事說簡單不簡單，說複雜不複雜，感覺遊走在現實與想像之間，但「想像」又不是「一個人腦中的意念」，而是表現手法有點「超現實」，就是現實中好像不太可能出現的情況…主角Albert（Jason Schwartzman飾）是「開放空間聯盟」的創立者，爭取沼澤、森林等開放空間的存在，即使只是一顆大石頭。因為他在巧合下遇見同一個非洲人三次，便委託「存在偵探社」為他找出這事件背後的含義。（這個偵探社就是我感到最不接近現實狀況的存在，比較像是導演想說的意念的化身）這間偵探社的主腦是一對夫妻---Vivian（Lily Tomling飾）及Bernard（Dustin Hoffman飾），他們無所不用其極地深入Albert的生活，因此將Albert的競爭對手Brad（Jude Law飾）及其女友一併捲入調查。當對一切價值感到懷疑、強烈關注石油問題的消防隊員湯米（Mark Wahlberg飾）被安排為Albert的搭檔時，對存在社的主張表示懷疑的兩人決定轉向支持主張虛無主義的法國女作家Caterine（Isabelle Huppert飾）…
可能很多劇情和台詞都有其深刻涵義在裡頭吧，無法直接聽英文對白的我實在比英文母語國家的觀眾吃虧，難以在步調本就快速的劇本中自由思考，或許這是我看完後沒啥感覺的原因；而且「存在偵探社」的Vivian夫妻的辦案方式總會分散我的注意力，覺得太誇張或不切實際之類…總覺得他們應該要用更專業、更聰明一點的方式監聽客戶的生活才對。不過，片中還是有些一看就相當震撼我的橋段。首先是湯米的想法，他一再強調「人們不想面對壞事，所以拒絕去思考」，並懷疑所有價值，不知我理解的對不對，但感覺我也有這種傾向，把所有事情回歸到本質去思考，就會覺得沒什麼事是「必要不可的」，而因此失去做任何事的動力與動機，反而不知道自己該做什麼才有價值。（或許該像「敲開我心門」那個母親說的「凡事看表面，去想一些實際生活上的事，會活得比較輕鬆」？）
其次是Brad，他一直用一種能取悅所有人的態度生活，並認為探討存在什麼的問題都沒有意義，他認為自己活得很好，並因此獲得無上的自信。讓他動搖的那一刻拍得令我印象極深刻：Vivian在他面前放他談話的錄音，不同日期，不同時間，不同地點，Brad面對不同人說著同一個笑話，一遍又一遍。一開始Brad把聽錄音帶也當成一個笑話，只覺得一切都很可笑，漸漸地他笑不出來，感到不自在、不舒服，最後他開始難以忍受再聽下去…Vivian說他是「在偽裝自己、活出別人心目中理想的形象，這不是真正的他」，Brad則回了一句：「我怎麼會不是我自己？」然後他們兩邊突然像都靈光一現、從這句話得到什麼啟發似地，一次又一次地重覆這句話。我在IMDB查到許多有意思的解讀（如下），綜合來看，我覺得或許Brad得到的啟發是「他的確不是在做他自己」，Vivian和Bernard則從中得到「或許偽裝成他人理想的樣子也是在做他自己」，這種雙層/多層含義感覺很有意思。
再來是Albert的「巧合」。Caterine給了它一個解釋：「非洲人因為冷戰而成了孤兒，你（Albert）則是因為冷漠而成了孤兒。」這句話我覺得非常非常棒且震撼，因為這才是連結Albert和非洲人最大的關鍵。不過更耐人尋味的是Albert和Brad的關係。雖然幾乎從頭到尾，這兩人都處於敵對狀態，在對抗的過程中，Albert卻猛然醒悟，自己和Brad比他想像的還要接近。（不過原因我就想不太出來了）
看了IMDB後，本來我只把這部片定義為「怪片」而已，現在卻突然很想再看一次英文字幕版，或許能有所斬獲也不一定。畢竟片中有不少有趣且深刻的對白/台詞，比如：
Tommy Corn:” How come we only ask ourselves the really big questions when something bad happens?”
Mr. Hooten: God gave us oil! He gave it to us! How can God's gift be bad?
Tommy Corn: I don't know. He gave you a brain too and you messed that up pretty damn good.
Mr. Hooten: I want you sons of bitches out of my house now!
Tommy Corn: If Hitler were alive, he'd tell you not to think about oil.
Mrs. Hooten: *You're* the Hitler! We took a Sudanese refugee into our home!
Tommy Corn: You did. But how did Sudan happen, ma'am? Could it possibly be related to dictatorships that we support for some stupid reason?
Albert Markovski: Nobody sits like this rock sits. You rock, rock. The rock just sits and is. You show us how to just sit here and that's what we need.
或許下次我該找阿民或哲琳一起看，應該能看懂更多吧。Anyway，片中的Jude Law超帥，我常會看他的臉看呆了，反而忘記聽他在說什麼^__^||；其它的演員也表現得很好，我最喜歡演湯米的Mark Wahlberg，他感覺好可愛！尤其是一直問問題時提高的語調…但我不怎麼喜歡Vivian和Bernard這兩個角色說…（外型跟個性都是，尤其是Vivian）此外，我喜歡它的配樂！一般來說，輕音樂配上小品式（非史詩格局或大格局）電影，都會讓我忽略掉配樂，這部片的配樂卻能給我深刻的印象，光這點就很厲害了…
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You're not yourself."
"How am I not myself?"
by pasqualt3 (Tue Aug 8 2006 16:24:07 )
you are not your self when you are pretending to be something you are not.
There are several fakers in this movie. People pretending to be happy or truthful. By denying who they really are they are becoming increasingly unhappy.
The ball is the void or like the magic pill that people take to avoid feeling pain but by doing so they are not living they are just falling deeper into the void of despair.
This movie to me is about serious depression and denial of personal happiness. Very good if you give it a chance but so many people don't.
by joshsslade (Sun Oct 29 2006 17:37:30 )
though if someone is pretending to be someone they aren’t, as in creating a false persona... is it not in their character to be false ergo they are in fact being themselves... so when they questioned weather or not he was being honest with himself saying he is not being himself he returns the question "how am i not being myself" since by doing whatever you do, it is you doing so... you are always yourself however fake you are being or upset you are inside your own head... the real answer can only be found when we define what "myself" is... is it the image you present, so when the outside world perceives you to have changed are you then being someone else, maybe to them but not to you... its basically just posing one of those intangible questions.. very well written in the film
by la-31 (Wed Aug 9 2006 23:17:52 )
I think "how am I not myself" refers to truly knowing oneself - and not some manufactured artificial self. Many characters in the film defined or saw themselves through the lenses of others - Dawn, Brad, and Albert of course. Were they really able to perceive their true selves? Of course, we see it all coming crashing down for Dawn. And even Brad. He saw himself through that Shania Twain story. Which he thought was clever and funny, and was actually pathetic and annoying. My favorite part is when Albert freaks out at the suggestion that perhaps Brad is very similar to him, and actually not his enemy. Albert had defined his whole righteous endeavors around the evil Brad of the evil Huckabees Corporation. But one of my favorite aspects of existentialism is this deconstruction of this notion of the "other." We define ourselves as separate from others. It suggests, maybe the "other" has more in common with you than you think.
by youarenotreal (Sun Aug 20 2006 15:00:13 )
Wow, did I really mess up the meaning of that phrase or what? I always thought the "how am i not myself" related to how even when you're not "yourself", you're still yourself, because the faking of the "not yourself" is still you. I know that's really quite ridiculous....
by RaoulDuke4 (Mon Aug 28 2006 13:32:55 )
I think la-31 makes a good point, but youarenotreal really nailed it. You are yourself even when not being "yourself". However, we do define ourselves a lot of times through others as la-31 said. These points both make the paradox of being and realization even more complex.
For example, when someone says "You are not yourself," or "That doesn't seem like you," they are really saying that "You don't fit into the definition that I thought I had perfectly formed for you."
Anyway, that is just my opinion, but I really did get the same idea from the phrase as youarenotreal did.
by pdj79 (Thu Sep 21 2006 08:04:19 )
I didn't see it as the detectives being surprised by the question and that's why they repeated it, although that does make a lot of sense and really brings a new depth to the movie for me. I saw it more of them trying to beat into Brad's head that he wasn't being himself, he was being what he wanted OTHERS to perceive him to be. He came to the realization that he was nothing but a scam and really didn't know who he was. He was all about materialistic gains and being perceived as clever, witty, and fun-loving, when deep down inside he was none of that at all. That was my take from that scene.
by EternalSunshineW (Thu Sep 21 2006 07:54:10 )
I think "How am I not myself" has a lot of meanings, but the one that keeps hitting me between the eyes is that most of these characters weren't being themselves, they were covering up their actual selves and basically doing, saying, wearing what everyone wanted them to be...or what they THINK everyone wants them to be. Especially Brad, which is why he flips out so much and thinks of "How am I not myself" over and over again. He's keeping everything hidden under his cheesy smile, cheesy stories, cheesy clothes...just do what people want and make them happy and they'll never find out who I really am or that I'm vulnerable. How am I not myself? Ask yourself that, and the things that aren't you...aren't you. Lol that's my interpretation anyways.
故事說簡單不簡單，說複雜不複雜，感覺遊走在現實與想像之間，但「想像」又不是「一個人腦中的意念」，而是表現手法有點「超現實」，就是現實中好像不太可能出現的情況…主角Albert（Jason Schwartzman飾）是「開放空間聯盟」的創立者，爭取沼澤、森林等開放空間的存在，即使只是一顆大石頭。因為他在巧合下遇見同一個非洲人三次，便委託「存在偵探社」為他找出這事件背後的含義。（這個偵探社就是我感到最不接近現實狀況的存在，比較像是導演想說的意念的化身）這間偵探社的主腦是一對夫妻---Vivian（Lily Tomling飾）及Bernard（Dustin Hoffman飾），他們無所不用其極地深入Albert的生活，因此將Albert的競爭對手Brad（Jude Law飾）及其女友一併捲入調查。當對一切價值感到懷疑、強烈關注石油問題的消防隊員湯米（Mark Wahlberg飾）被安排為Albert的搭檔時，對存在社的主張表示懷疑的兩人決定轉向支持主張虛無主義的法國女作家Caterine（Isabelle Huppert飾）…
可能很多劇情和台詞都有其深刻涵義在裡頭吧，無法直接聽英文對白的我實在比英文母語國家的觀眾吃虧，難以在步調本就快速的劇本中自由思考，或許這是我看完後沒啥感覺的原因；而且「存在偵探社」的Vivian夫妻的辦案方式總會分散我的注意力，覺得太誇張或不切實際之類…總覺得他們應該要用更專業、更聰明一點的方式監聽客戶的生活才對。不過，片中還是有些一看就相當震撼我的橋段。首先是湯米的想法，他一再強調「人們不想面對壞事，所以拒絕去思考」，並懷疑所有價值，不知我理解的對不對，但感覺我也有這種傾向，把所有事情回歸到本質去思考，就會覺得沒什麼事是「必要不可的」，而因此失去做任何事的動力與動機，反而不知道自己該做什麼才有價值。（或許該像「敲開我心門」那個母親說的「凡事看表面，去想一些實際生活上的事，會活得比較輕鬆」？）
其次是Brad，他一直用一種能取悅所有人的態度生活，並認為探討存在什麼的問題都沒有意義，他認為自己活得很好，並因此獲得無上的自信。讓他動搖的那一刻拍得令我印象極深刻：Vivian在他面前放他談話的錄音，不同日期，不同時間，不同地點，Brad面對不同人說著同一個笑話，一遍又一遍。一開始Brad把聽錄音帶也當成一個笑話，只覺得一切都很可笑，漸漸地他笑不出來，感到不自在、不舒服，最後他開始難以忍受再聽下去…Vivian說他是「在偽裝自己、活出別人心目中理想的形象，這不是真正的他」，Brad則回了一句：「我怎麼會不是我自己？」然後他們兩邊突然像都靈光一現、從這句話得到什麼啟發似地，一次又一次地重覆這句話。我在IMDB查到許多有意思的解讀（如下），綜合來看，我覺得或許Brad得到的啟發是「他的確不是在做他自己」，Vivian和Bernard則從中得到「或許偽裝成他人理想的樣子也是在做他自己」，這種雙層/多層含義感覺很有意思。
再來是Albert的「巧合」。Caterine給了它一個解釋：「非洲人因為冷戰而成了孤兒，你（Albert）則是因為冷漠而成了孤兒。」這句話我覺得非常非常棒且震撼，因為這才是連結Albert和非洲人最大的關鍵。不過更耐人尋味的是Albert和Brad的關係。雖然幾乎從頭到尾，這兩人都處於敵對狀態，在對抗的過程中，Albert卻猛然醒悟，自己和Brad比他想像的還要接近。（不過原因我就想不太出來了）
看了IMDB後，本來我只把這部片定義為「怪片」而已，現在卻突然很想再看一次英文字幕版，或許能有所斬獲也不一定。畢竟片中有不少有趣且深刻的對白/台詞，比如：
Tommy Corn:” How come we only ask ourselves the really big questions when something bad happens?”
Mr. Hooten: God gave us oil! He gave it to us! How can God's gift be bad?
Tommy Corn: I don't know. He gave you a brain too and you messed that up pretty damn good.
Mr. Hooten: I want you sons of bitches out of my house now!
Tommy Corn: If Hitler were alive, he'd tell you not to think about oil.
Mrs. Hooten: *You're* the Hitler! We took a Sudanese refugee into our home!
Tommy Corn: You did. But how did Sudan happen, ma'am? Could it possibly be related to dictatorships that we support for some stupid reason?
Albert Markovski: Nobody sits like this rock sits. You rock, rock. The rock just sits and is. You show us how to just sit here and that's what we need.
或許下次我該找阿民或哲琳一起看，應該能看懂更多吧。Anyway，片中的Jude Law超帥，我常會看他的臉看呆了，反而忘記聽他在說什麼^__^||；其它的演員也表現得很好，我最喜歡演湯米的Mark Wahlberg，他感覺好可愛！尤其是一直問問題時提高的語調…但我不怎麼喜歡Vivian和Bernard這兩個角色說…（外型跟個性都是，尤其是Vivian）此外，我喜歡它的配樂！一般來說，輕音樂配上小品式（非史詩格局或大格局）電影，都會讓我忽略掉配樂，這部片的配樂卻能給我深刻的印象，光這點就很厲害了…
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You're not yourself."
"How am I not myself?"
by pasqualt3 (Tue Aug 8 2006 16:24:07 )
you are not your self when you are pretending to be something you are not.
There are several fakers in this movie. People pretending to be happy or truthful. By denying who they really are they are becoming increasingly unhappy.
The ball is the void or like the magic pill that people take to avoid feeling pain but by doing so they are not living they are just falling deeper into the void of despair.
This movie to me is about serious depression and denial of personal happiness. Very good if you give it a chance but so many people don't.
by joshsslade (Sun Oct 29 2006 17:37:30 )
though if someone is pretending to be someone they aren’t, as in creating a false persona... is it not in their character to be false ergo they are in fact being themselves... so when they questioned weather or not he was being honest with himself saying he is not being himself he returns the question "how am i not being myself" since by doing whatever you do, it is you doing so... you are always yourself however fake you are being or upset you are inside your own head... the real answer can only be found when we define what "myself" is... is it the image you present, so when the outside world perceives you to have changed are you then being someone else, maybe to them but not to you... its basically just posing one of those intangible questions.. very well written in the film
by la-31 (Wed Aug 9 2006 23:17:52 )
I think "how am I not myself" refers to truly knowing oneself - and not some manufactured artificial self. Many characters in the film defined or saw themselves through the lenses of others - Dawn, Brad, and Albert of course. Were they really able to perceive their true selves? Of course, we see it all coming crashing down for Dawn. And even Brad. He saw himself through that Shania Twain story. Which he thought was clever and funny, and was actually pathetic and annoying. My favorite part is when Albert freaks out at the suggestion that perhaps Brad is very similar to him, and actually not his enemy. Albert had defined his whole righteous endeavors around the evil Brad of the evil Huckabees Corporation. But one of my favorite aspects of existentialism is this deconstruction of this notion of the "other." We define ourselves as separate from others. It suggests, maybe the "other" has more in common with you than you think.
by youarenotreal (Sun Aug 20 2006 15:00:13 )
Wow, did I really mess up the meaning of that phrase or what? I always thought the "how am i not myself" related to how even when you're not "yourself", you're still yourself, because the faking of the "not yourself" is still you. I know that's really quite ridiculous....
by RaoulDuke4 (Mon Aug 28 2006 13:32:55 )
I think la-31 makes a good point, but youarenotreal really nailed it. You are yourself even when not being "yourself". However, we do define ourselves a lot of times through others as la-31 said. These points both make the paradox of being and realization even more complex.
For example, when someone says "You are not yourself," or "That doesn't seem like you," they are really saying that "You don't fit into the definition that I thought I had perfectly formed for you."
Anyway, that is just my opinion, but I really did get the same idea from the phrase as youarenotreal did.
by pdj79 (Thu Sep 21 2006 08:04:19 )
I didn't see it as the detectives being surprised by the question and that's why they repeated it, although that does make a lot of sense and really brings a new depth to the movie for me. I saw it more of them trying to beat into Brad's head that he wasn't being himself, he was being what he wanted OTHERS to perceive him to be. He came to the realization that he was nothing but a scam and really didn't know who he was. He was all about materialistic gains and being perceived as clever, witty, and fun-loving, when deep down inside he was none of that at all. That was my take from that scene.
by EternalSunshineW (Thu Sep 21 2006 07:54:10 )
I think "How am I not myself" has a lot of meanings, but the one that keeps hitting me between the eyes is that most of these characters weren't being themselves, they were covering up their actual selves and basically doing, saying, wearing what everyone wanted them to be...or what they THINK everyone wants them to be. Especially Brad, which is why he flips out so much and thinks of "How am I not myself" over and over again. He's keeping everything hidden under his cheesy smile, cheesy stories, cheesy clothes...just do what people want and make them happy and they'll never find out who I really am or that I'm vulnerable. How am I not myself? Ask yourself that, and the things that aren't you...aren't you. Lol that's my interpretation anyways.
全站熱搜
留言列表
喜愛演員專區 (12)
