《1917》影评及概览(2019)| 罗杰·伊伯特
1917 movie review & film summary (2019) | Roger Ebert
1101字
2019-12-31 00:47
62阅读
火星译客

 |  Peter SobczynskiDecember 25, 2019   |  

|   Peter Sobczynski2019年12月25日    |

At a time when it seems as if cinema experiences a new technological breakthrough every few months, it's oddly comforting that moviegoers can still be hooked by a film that's presented as being one unbroken shot. Granted, it's not a new idea, but the concept of an extended single shot, whether the shot is meant to stretch for an entire movie, or just serve as the focus for an especially showy scene, still has the power to excite viewers on some basic level. “1917,” the new film from Sam Mendes, is the latest attempt at the feature-length single-shot approach, and its technical accomplishments cannot be denied. But the film is so obsessed with its particular technique that it doesn't leave room for the other things we also go to the movies for—little things like a strong story, interesting characters, or a reason for existing other than as a feat of technical derring-do. Sitting through it is like watching someone else playing a video game for two solid hours, and not an especially compelling one at that.

看起来电影似乎每隔几个月就会经历一场新的技术变革,而就算电影没有任何突破性的镜头,观众仍会买单,这很奇怪却也令人欣慰。电影的确不是一个新的理念,而只是单个镜头的延伸,无论镜头是要延伸贯穿整部电影,还是只是作为特别精彩的一个场景的焦点,都能够从某些层面上触动观众。《1917》是萨姆·门德斯导演的新作,采用了长篇伪一镜到底手法,其中所展示的技术成就不可置否。但是电影太过于注重专业的拍摄技巧,忽视了观众去电影院想看的其他东西——比如充实的故事,有趣的人物角色,或者是电影存在的理由等小细节,而不是勇于创新技术的壮举。看完整部电影,就像是主动看别人打了整整两个小时的游戏。

Advertisement

广告

As indicated by the title, “1917” is set amidst the turmoil of World War I and takes place in and around the so-called “no man's land” in northern France separating British and German troops. Two young corporals, Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) and Schofield (George MacKay), are awoken from what could have only been a few minutes of sleep and ordered to report for a new assignment. A few miles away, another company, one that includes Blake's brother, has planned an attack to commence in a few hours designed to push the Germans back even further following a recent retreat. However, recent intelligence suggests that the retreat is a ruse that will land them in ambush that will cost thousands of British lives. With the radio lines down, Blake and Schofield are ordered to head on foot to that company in order to call off the attack before it can commence, a journey that will force them to travel through enemy territory. Of course, the two have been assured that where they will be crossing is safe enough, but the tension within the soldiers they meet as they get closer to the front, and the recent nature of the carnage they witness when they first go over the top, suggests otherwise. And yet, that first glimpse of the literal Hell on earth they must journey through is only a taste of what they have to endure—at one point, one of them inadvertently plunges a hand recently sliced by barbed wire into the open wound of a corpse and that turns out to be one of the less excruciating moments in store for them.

正如电影名称所示,《1971》正值第一次世界大战混乱时期,故事发生在法国北部被称为“无人区”的地方,这个地方是英德部队的分界线。两个年轻的士兵,布雷克(迪恩·查尔斯·查普曼 饰)和斯科菲尔德(乔治·麦凯 饰)刚睡了几分钟,就被叫醒,接受新的指派。而在不远的地方,正是布雷克的亲兄弟所在的另一个部队,该部队已经计划好几小时后的突击,打算趁德军上次撤退,进一步将其击退。然而,最新情报表明,上次撤退只是德军的一个计策,以便设置埋伏,如果这一计划成功,将牺牲数千名英国士兵的性命。由于无线电线路无法传送消息,布雷克和斯科菲尔德受命奔赴该阵地,以阻止这次突击,而在路途中,他们必须穿越敌人的领地。当然,他们途经之地已经确保都是安全的,但是当他们越来越靠近前线,他们也感受到士兵们的不安,还有他们第一次走出战壕,亲眼目睹屠杀,了解到其真实本质。可是,初次目睹他们必须穿越的人间地狱,比起他们将要遭遇的,根本不值一提——有一次,他们中有人不小心将才被刺绳割伤的手扎进了一具尸体的伤口里,而这在他们的记忆中,都算是相对能够接受的事情。

“1917” essentially wants to do for World War I what “Saving Private Ryan” did for World War II and “Platoon” did for Vietnam—provide a visceral depiction of the horrors of combat for viewers whose only frame of reference for those conflicts has been history books or other movies. This is not a bad idea for a film, but "1917" never quite comes alive in the way that Mendes presumably hoped, and much of the reason for that is the direct result of how he has deployed to tell his story. Now, I enjoy an extended single-shot sequence that exists solely for a filmmaker to show off their technical finesse, but if I were to make a list of the most effective one-shot sequences, they would be the ones that are so absorbing for other reasons that we don't even register at first that they have been done in what looks like one long take. Take the famous opening scene in Orson Welles' “Touch of Evil,” for example. Yes, it is a technical marvel. But at the same time Welles was pulling off this trick with the aid of cinematographer Russell Metty, he was setting up the story and introducing several of the key characters quickly and efficiently. When he did finally make a cut, it came as a genuine shock.

《1917》实际上想像二战代表作品《拯救大兵瑞恩》和越南战争代表作《野战排》一样,成为一战经典影片——让只能通过历史书籍和其他电影了解战争的观众,能够真实地感受到战争的恐怖。对一部电影来说,这是个不错的想法,但《1917》没有按门德斯预期的那样呈现出来,究其原因,大都在于门德斯阐述电影故事的方式。虽然我现在很喜欢一镜到底的长镜头,这种镜头仅仅只是为了让制作人炫耀技术上的技巧,但如果要让我列举那些最具影响力的一镜到底场景 ,我会选择那些一开始就莫名十分吸引人的场景,这些镜头看起来像是花了很长时间才制作出来。奥逊·威尔斯的《历劫佳人》开场就是电影技术上的一个奇迹。在电影摄影师拉塞尔·麦蒂的帮助下,威尔斯成功实践了这项技巧,并快速高效地讲述了整个故事,介绍了几个主要角色。当影片最终完成时,大家都大吃一惊。

By comparison, there is hardly a moment to be had in “1917” in which Mendes is not calling out for viewers to notice all the technical brilliance on display. Taken strictly on those terms, the film is undeniably impressive—Roger Deakins is one of the all-time great cinematographers and his work here on what must have been a fiendishly challenging shoot is as impressive as anything he has done. The problem is that the visual conceit can't help but draw attention to itself throughout, whether it is due to the increasingly showy camera moves or the sometimes awkward methods that are deployed to camouflage the edits and which begin to stick out more and more. (Oddly enough, the most blatantly obvious method used to hide a cut—one of the characters being briefly knocked unconscious—is actually the most dramatically effective of the bunch.) Instead of gradually fading into the background in order to make room for elements of a more dramatic or emotional nature, the distracting technique remains front and center.

与之对比,电影《1917》里面几乎没有能让观众注意到卓越拍摄技术的镜头,而门德斯也并没有这样做。从这些方面仔细来看,这部电影确实令人印象深刻——罗杰·狄金斯是有史以来伟大的摄影师之一,他在这部电影中的尝试绝对是不平凡的,充满挑战的,也比他之前的任何作品都更令人印象深刻。问题是视觉上别出心裁的表现方式非但没有帮助,反而全程引起了观众对表现手法本身的关注,不管这是由于炫目的照相机移动技术日新月异,还是因为偶尔令人称奇的用来隐藏编辑的手法现在越来越多地兴起。(很奇怪的是,用来隐藏剪辑的最显而易见的手法——其中一个角色暂时被打得不省人事——实际上是大多数手法中最为有效的。)代替逐渐消失到幕后的这种方式,分散技巧为更加戏剧性或感性的人性元素,留出了更多的表现空间,所以一直是电影技巧中的前沿核心技术。

Advertisement

广告

Granted, one of the reasons that the visual style ends up dominating the proceedings is because there isn't really much of anything on hand here that has much chance of stealing focus. The storyline concocted by Mendes and co-writer Krysty Wilson-Cairns too often feels like an amalgamation of such classic WWI films as "The Big Parade," “All Quiet on the Western Front” and "Paths of Glory." At certain points, the story stops dead for brief appearances by familiar faces like Colin Firth, Benedict Cumberbatch and Mark Strong in exposition-heavy sequences that feel exactly like the cut scenes that appear between the different levels in video games. 

诚然,视觉风格不再主导电影制作的其中一个原因是缺乏足够现成的有把握吸睛的东西。由门德斯和作家克莉斯蒂·威尔逊·凯恩斯联合编写的故事情节,总感觉像是《战地之花》《西线无战事》《光荣之路》等经典一战影片的结合体。从某些角度来说,科林·费尔斯本尼迪克特·康伯巴奇马克・斯特朗等大众所熟知的面孔短暂出演,让故事发展停滞不前——沉重的镜头让人感觉就像是电子游戏中出现的不同等级之间的场景切换。

“1917” is not entirely without interest. This was clearly a fiendishly complicated project to stage and execute and there are some scenes (such as an especially tense one set in a seemingly abandoned shelter that contains a few nasty surprises), that are legitimate knockouts. And yet, for all of its technical expertise, little of it helps viewers to care about the characters or what might happen to them. When all is said and done, "1917" is basically a gimmick film. If that is enough for you, you may admire it for its accomplishments. Personally, I wanted more.

电影《1917》也不是完全没有趣味。这部电影的策划和执行,异常复杂和困难,里面的一些场景(比如在看似被遗弃却令人大为意外的避难所里,一个特别紧张的场景)都很真实,令人印象深刻。然而,对于怎么引起观众对剧中人物及其遭遇的兴趣,电影里的专业技术却没有起到丝毫帮助。虽然电影工作很全面,但《1917》实际上也只是徒有其表。如果你认为这已经很不错了,那么你也会称赞其所取得的成绩。但在我个人看来,这还远远不够。

Reveal Comments

发表评论

0 条评论
评论不能为空