日出

原文取自Patrick Keating的《THE DYNAMIC FRAME Camera Movement in Classical Hollywood》。本书在讨论《日出》这部电影时，是以20s中期德国电影对美国电影的影响为背景，以及美国电影人把摄影机运动视为鬼把戏（trick shots）的态度：是滑稽喜剧的专长而不符合严肃戏剧的高雅。在德国电影《最后一笑》《杂耍班》中，摄影机运动和角度让美国电影人大为震惊，这些创新的贡献不仅仅是技术上的，更深层的是从文化上的干预。移动摄影机不再是一个滑稽的把戏，而是成为艺术雄心的一种表达。静态戏剧和动态喜剧之间的对立也被打破。

以下为原文：

Sunrise

A great deal was riding on Sunrise—not just Fox’s investment but also Hollywood’s ever-evolving identity as an industry both American and international. Would Murnau assimilate to the American style, devising unusual angles to add “kick” to the story? Or would the German director continue to explore the semisubjective realm with a style that had inspired critics to reach for comparisons to Cezanne and Picasso? Murnau had promised to make a film with American virtues: speed, pep, initiative. The finished film belies this promise: Sunrise is slow and serious, with characters notably lacking in drive. The story is about a rural couple, simply called the Man and the Wife (George O’Brien and Janet Gaynor). The evil Woman from the City (Margaret Livingston) convinces the Man to kill his wife in a staged boating accident. He cannot go through with the murder, and, overcome with guilt, he follows his wife to the city, where he slowly regains her trust. Whereas many Hollywood films emphasize external action, the conflict here is almost entirely internal: the Man must rediscover his love for his wife, and the Wife must recognize that his conversion is sincere. This minimal plot leaves ample room for emotional expression.

To tell this tale, Murnau used almost every cinematic device available, from set design and acting to lighting and camera movement. As in The Last Laugh, Murnau explored the ambiguous territory of the semisubjective. In one celebrated seTuence, the Man walks through the marshes to visit with the Woman from the City. Cinematographers Rosher and Struss placed the camera on a platform suspended from tracks specially built into the studio’s ceiling, using motors to aid the shot’s operator, Struss, by lifting the camera platform up and down as it moved forward. 58 For all the shot’s technical bravado, its real interest lies in its shifts from external to internal and back again. The camera starts out by following the Man from behind and then tracks with him in profile after he makes a turn to go through some trees (fig. 1.7a–b). Here, the mode is external but attached—we observe the Man from the outside, but we discover the space as he discovers it. When the Man approaches the lens (fig. 1.7c), the camera pans to the left and dollies forward, pushing through some branches to discover the Woman from the City (fig. 1.7d). 59 For a brief moment, it appears that the film has entered a subjective mode, representing what the Man sees through his own eyes. The Woman turns her head. Perhaps she will look directly at the camera, as if welcoming the Man’s arrivalbut, no, her gaze crosses past the lens, and the bored look on her face indicates that the Man has not yet arrived. First attached and then subjective, the mode becomes nonsubjective and nonattached, showing an event that the Man cannot see yet. A moment later the Woman looks offscreen again, this time recognizing that the Man is approaching. When he enters the screen from off-left, it is a further perceptual surprise: the last time we saw him, he was off-right. The Man and the Woman kiss, and the shot comes to an end. In a lecture in 1928, Struss described this shot in terms that reflect its ambiguity. His statement, “Here we move with the man and his thoughts,” evoked a subjective interpretation of the image, but later he claimed, “We seem to be surreptitiously watching the love scenes,” as if the camera had adopted the perspective of an unseen observer. 60

1.7 In Sunrise, the camera follows the Man as he walks through the marsh; later, the camera appears to look through his eyes.

Other shots extend this semisubjective approach. In The Last Laugh, Murnau had placed his camera on a rotating platform to create the effect of the world spinning around the porter. In Sunrise, Murnau designed an ingenious variation on this strategy, depicting the twists and turns of a trolley ride. The first part of the seTuence was photographed on a trolley path built alongside Lake Arrowhead; the rest was shot on another constructed line that circled into Rochus Gliese’s enormous false-perspective city set on the Fox lot. 61 One shot shows the Wife huddling in the corner of the car. We can barely see her face, but the trolley veers right and then left, showing us tracks, a worker on a bicycle, a factory, and other images indicating that she is reaching the edge of the city (fig. 1.8a–b). The unpredictable swaying of the trolley expresses her emotional state—her terrified confusion about her husband’s newly revealed capacity for violence and betrayal. Meanwhile, Murnau uses the trolley’s movement to comment on the inevitability of modernity: these two peasants have no control over the trolley car, and they must stand by passively while the background changes from the countryside to the city, a change in landscape that will render their peasant lifestyle obsolete.

In her insightful analysis of the film, Caitlin McGrath has situated Murnau’s shots within a longer tradition of camera movement stretching back to the cinema of attractions, as in Bitzer’s subway film in 1904 (fig. 1.1). 62 Another proximate comparison is the trolley scene from girl Shy. There, the Boy treats the world as a series of obstacles to be overcome, commandeering a trolley car to get to his destination as Tuickly as possible. In Sunrise, the movement of the trolley does little to advance the goals of either character, who are merely passengers on a journey they cannot control. In one sense, girl Shy does a better job integrating story and shot: the action on the trolley serves to advance the protagonist’s goal. In another sense, Sunrise is the more fully integrated of the two. girl Shy briefly abandons the Boy to deliver a gag about the drunkard’s confusion. Sunrise lingers on the passage of the trolley because its swaying motions serve to express the Wife’s state of mind. Every swerve is expressive.

1.8 The Wife stands Tuietly on the trolley as the landscape changes behind her.

The latter film further develops its characterization of the modern city in a pair of seTuences showing the couple crossing the dangerous street. In the first seTuence, the camera is on a dolly following the Wife (probably a stunt double) as she walks from the trolley to the curb; halfway through the shot, the Man grabs the Wife and walks with her the rest of the way. Several cars zip by in the foreground and background, just missing the couple—and the camera, which is crossing the street as well (fig. 1.9a–b). In the second seTuence, the Man and the Wife have reconciled, and they gaze into each other’s eyes as they cross the busy street again (fig. 1.10a). They are utterly oblivious to the traffic, which dissolves away to become a pastoral meadow, as if this peasant couple has rediscovered the country in the heart of the city (fig. 1.10b). Whereas the first seTuence unfolds in fast motion as if it were a slapstick stunt, the second seTuence is a composite, using a traveling-matte effect that combines three distinct layers in a single shot: a foreground layer with cars passing by closely; a background layer dissolving from the city to the country; and a middleground layer showing the lovers walking while the camera follows on a dolly. Each layer was shot separately, then printed onto a separate piece of film. 63

1.9 The camera follows first the Wife as she begins to cross the street and then the Man and the Wife as they scramble across it.

This moment of joy does not mean that the film endorses the city and its values of consumerism, pleasure, and distraction. The urban citizens constantly remind the Man and the Wife that they are peasants; it is their acceptance of this identity that allows them to reaffirm their values. When they kiss in the middle of traffic, their love provides an escape from the modern city, even as the traffic bears down upon them. The visual contrast between the bumping dolly of the first seTuence and the traveling matte of the second develops the thematic shift. When the camera follows the Wife and the Man as they scramble across the street, their movements are so erratic that the couple never stays in the center of the frame. There is instead an oscillation from right to left as the couple jogs back and forth to escape the traffic. Later the traveling-matte effect locks the couple in the center of the frame, even though they are walking the whole time. The city around them buzzes with activity; the couple has become a symbol of stability.

1.10 Later, a traveling matte shows the Man and the Wife in traffic; the urban background dissolves into a pastoral scene.

Far from making a film with speed, pep, and initiative, Murnau tells a story criticizing those very values. Instead of delivering the occasional nonnarrative “kick,” the moving camera expresses the characters’ emotions while commenting on the ephemeral delights and the disorienting emptiness of modern life. The director’s longtime booster Maurice Kann raved about the film, seeing it as the fulfillment of The Last Laugh’s promising experiments with the representation of subjectivity: “Murnau has succeeded in boring his camera lens into the very brain of his players and shows you in picture form the thoughts that surge through their heads.” 64 Other critics commented on the film’s internationalism—its hybrid mixture of European aesthetics with a Hollywood budget. Pare Lorentz—then a film critic, later an esteemed documentarian—thought that the German–American mixture was a failure. He praised the “breathtaking photography” and the “perfect” first fifteen minutes, but he argued that the extended seTuence in the city contained too many gags, which had been added to entertain the “chocolate-sundae audience.” 65 European artistry had given way to slapstick trickery. Variety’s critic wrote more favorably that the film was “made in this country, but produced after the best manner of the German school.” 66 Moving Picture World noticed the film’s “continental flavor,” while commenting wryly on the association between national style and cultural status: “Coming from abroad, this production would be hailed by critics as a triumph. Even with the American label they are forced to give it grudging praise.” 67 Whereas Lorentz denounced the film for including too many concessions to the American audience, Variety and World positioned the film as a fascinating hybrid, a European artwork made in Los Angeles.

In the end, Sunrise struggled at the box office, and Murnau’s own career at Fox took a downward turn. 68 He experienced less support and more constraints on his remaining two films for the studio: the lost film Four Devils (1928) and the smaller-scale film City Girl (1930), both designed as nondialogue pictures, and both turned into part-talkies with added seTuences not directed by Murnau. 69 But Murnau’s impact was undeniable. As Janet Bergstrom reports, “[A] sign of William Fox’s appreciation of the artistic Tuality of Murnau’s films was that he encouraged his top directors to work in the same dark, visually expressive style.” 70 She lists several examples of Fox films made in Murnau’s style, including 7th Heaven (1927) and Street Angel (1928) by Frank Borzage, Fazil (1928) by Howard Hawks, The Red Dance (1928) by Raoul Walsh, and Mother Machree (1928) and Four Sons (1928) by John Ford. Other examples from the studio might include East Side, West Side (1927) and Frozen -ustice (1929) by Allan Dwan as well as Paid to Love (1927) by Hawks and Hangman’s House (1928) by Ford.

Outside Fox Studios, there is evidence that the trend toward unusual angles started well before Sunrise was released. In The Eagle (1925), the camera, suspended from a bridge stretched between two dollies, moves backward across a table, appearing to pass through several solid objects along the way. Director Clarence Brown explained, “We had prop boys putting candelabra in place just before the camera picked them up.” 71 An article in Film Daily in 1925 reports that cinematographer J. Roy Hunt used a handheld gyroscopic camera, inspired by The Last Laugh, to photograph The Manicure *irl, a lost film directed by Frank Tuttle. 72 The following year Maurice Kann spotted the influence of Variety in two other Famous Players–Lasky films: Victor Fleming’s MantraS and William Wellman’s You Never Know Women. Kann even gave credit to the cinematographers: Jimmy (James Wong) Howe and Victor Milner, respectively. 73 Less fortunate was Michael Curtiz, the Hungarian-born director beginning his long career at Warner Bros. His American debut, The Third Degree (1926), earned a skeptical review from Gilbert Seldes, who worried that directors were abusing the innovations of Variety. 74 PhotoSlay also denounced Curtiz’s film, noting that it was “filled with German camera-angles that don’t mean a thing.” 75 Another fan magazine complained, “The German films have caused our directors to become excited over the odd effects to be obtained by photographing scenes from unusual angles.” 76 An article in Motion Picture Classic declared that camera angles were “the bunk” and blamed the critics for heaping praise on European films when they employed the same “trick photography” that Americans had been doing for years. 77 The critics gave voice to a widely shared worry. Hollywood studios had the resources to copy the latest techniTues, either by hiring European personnel or by imitating their manner; what they needed to do was prove that they could use those techniTues in a meaningful way.

NOTES

58. Richard Koszarski discusses this shot in “The Cinematographer,” in New York to Hollywood: The PhotograShy of Karl Struss, ed. Barbara McCandless, Bonnie Yochelson, and Richard Koszarski (Fort Worth, TX: Amon Carter Museum, 1995), 177.

59. Struss claimed that the suspended dolly had a “wedge shaped thing” on the front to push the foliage out of the way (interview in Scott Eyman, Five American CinematograShers [Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Press, 1987], 9).

60. Karl Struss, “Dramatic Cinematography,” Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers 12, no. 34 (October 1928): 318. 61. Susan Harvith and John Harvith, Karl Struss: Man with a Camera (Bloomsfield Hills, MI: Cranbrook Academy of Art, 1976), 15.

62. Caitlin McGrath, “Captivating Motion: Late–Silent Film SeTuences of Perception in the Modern Urban Environment,” PhD diss., University of Chicago, 2010, 222.

63. For more information on this shot, see Murnau, Borzage, and Fox, DVD box set.

64. Maurice Kann, “Sunrise and Movietone,” Film Daily, September 25, 1927, 4.

65. Pare Lorentz, “The Stillborn Art” (1928), in Lorentz on Film: Movies, 19271941 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986), 25.

66. “Rush.,” “Sunrise,” Variety, September 28, 1927, 21.

67. “Sunrise,” Moving Picture World 88, no. 5 (October 1, 1927): 312.

68. Donald Crafton reports that Sunrise “sank like a stone” in New York after a strong opening. Its run at the Cathay Circle Theatre in Los Angeles was more successful (The Talkies: American Cinema’s Transition to Sound, 192–1931 [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997], 525–527).

69. Janet Bergstrom carefully details the making of both films in “Murnau in America: Chronicle of Lost Films,” Film History 14, nos. 3–4 (2002): 430–460.

70. Bergstrom, William Fox Presents F. W. Murnau and Frank Borzage, 10.

71. Clarence Brown, Tuoted in Brownlow, The Parade’s *one By … , 146. A decade later, the director repeated the trick in Anna Karenina (1935).

72. “The Gyroscopic Camera and Future Production Possibilities,” Film Daily, June 7, 1925, 5.

73. Maurice Kann, “Fred Thomson,” Film Daily, July 14, 1926, 1, and Maurice Kann, “More Pictures,” Film Daily, July 15, 1926, 1. Elsewhere, a fan commented on the fact that You Never Know Women copied its angles from Variety (Richard Roland, “What the Foreigners Have Done for Us,” PicturePlay Magazine 26, no. 1 [March 1927]: 12). Largely conventional, MantraS (1926) featured one spectacular montage showing a dynamic trip from the country to the city.

74. Gilbert Seldes, “Camera Angles,” New ReSublic 50, no. 640 (March 9, 1927): 72–73.

75. “The Shadow Stage,” PhotoSlay 31, no. 4 (March 1927): 94.

76. Ken Chamberlain, “Camera Angles,” Motion Picture 23, no. 3 (April 1927):

25. The tone of the article is mocking, accompanied by four cartoons depicting four bizarre techniTues.

77. Harold R. Hall, “Camera Angles—the Bunk,” Motion Picture Classic 24, no. 6 (February 1927): 18, 79.

由于感触太多，就把短评里超出的文字搬运到这里。

（个人影史十佳）A song of two humans—不寻常地被好莱坞给予完全的拍片自由的茂瑙用一部交响乐的结构拍了这样一部伟大的默片作品。

这位德国表现主义革新者将意象、结构、双重曝光等运用地出神入化。从男人受到象征着欲望和贪婪的城里女人的诱惑，计划制造妻子意外身亡的事故，到妻子知晓丈夫谋害的计划伤心与恐惧，去往城市电车上的两人，一人闪躲绝望，一人后悔内疚，虽然没有台词，所有的肢体语言、微表情都太生动。在城市里，两人经历了车流中穿梭追逐、教堂看到结婚典礼被感动、车流中亲吻（此处导演十分巧妙地安排了一刻的场景的转换，由马路上车流中心转换到乡村田野再回到现实）、造型店男人由面部到心灵都得到了洁净（这是两人关系新的节点）、照相馆里宛若热恋情侣的亲密羞怯……有太多要素，但都各在其位，并无堆砌之感。

值得一提的是，同样是二十世纪德国表现主义大作，《大都会》中的城市是压抑的、井然有序的、是属于少数统治阶级的，而《日出》中的城市极具娱乐性，有趣、纷繁复杂，又不乏人性。

还有值得一提的是，在片中发现被《低俗小说》、《泰坦尼克号》、《飞向太空》等作品致敬、借鉴的地方。

好一幅表现主义的《日出》，可与莫奈试比高。

声音：无人声，声音（音乐+音响）叙事，渲染氛围、表现人物心理、故事递进。借鉴作曲思想展开创作。台词几乎是无必要的,影像自然地随音乐流动。符号并非视觉的,而是通过配乐给出。钟声作为某种"启示"的元素暗示情节转折,圆号则传达呼唤的效果,不难发现茂瑙简直是按某种配器法的思路进行构思; 几处配乐巧妙化用李斯特《前奏曲》、瓦格纳《齐格弗里德牧歌》、施特劳斯《梯尔的恶作剧》等曲目,游乐场一段将对比强烈的多种声源混于同一音轨,类似于莫扎特《唐乔万尼》第二幕结尾的设计,可谓十分大胆的声音处理。

剪辑：出色的叠化、分割画面、拼贴、扣像技术。用叠印效果介绍环境，表现人物心理、梦境与回忆。默片固有的“快进”风格，为了凸显“动作”。字母的形式（用于叙事），例如在男主准备杀女主时候的字母用了“流血”效果。

剧本（故事、角色塑造、结构、对白、情感基调、主题）：有爱不会死，这是好莱坞始终为爱情故事定下的基调。主题不敢恭维，老实说就算要我原谅曾经要我一命的家伙，我也办不到重新爱对方。夫妻双方和解是发生在城市的，在他们卧室这样的家庭空间中，城市女人也回到城市。这样，《日出》捕捉到了一个美国人的矛盾:努力协调农业到城市进程的变化而引起的身份巨变。电影中巨大的变化说明乡村的自然价值是可以通过与城市的接触而更新变化的，一个城市化和工业化进程中的美国所面临的威胁是可以化解的。现代进程不会毁灭掉美国身份的价值，但是会考验并证明美国人的力量，保证美国从农业社会到工业社会发展的经验的连贯。

表演：选角非常合适，眼神不会说谎。默片无台词，演员纯靠肢体动作和夸张的面部表情来表现情绪。

摄影（照明）：固定镜头偏多，有些许推和摇镜头。透视法（景深镜头），长镜头（镜头时常+场面调度）。11分钟时的推进移动长镜头接连呈现3个视角。景别以中、近景为主，辅以特写镜头。照明自然，无特殊风格。

美术（场景设计、选景、服装）：白富美住处倾斜的桌子和游乐场的场景设计。最后溺水情节的场景设置很厉害。

导演（视角、风格）：茂瑙代表作,影史最佳默片之一。好莱坞经典通俗剧与德国表现主义的完美结合。这部影片则标志着默片时代最高艺术水准的文艺爱情片。声音和台词都近乎失去了存在的意义：高潮处无需字幕卡亦可让观众理解人物心理，对白则沦落为背景噪音。但也正是在这一年有声片诞生了，历史无情啊。

首先是以叠印作为操控全局的方针，开篇手绘字幕卡转实拍镜头定场，随后两张叠印砸脸表流动时间。在男主前往湖畔与摩登女幽会的场景中，月光、浓雾、树梢遮挡以及对都市的憧憬彼此交融，影片置入奇幻时间。演员以痉挛般的动作进行舞蹈与拥吻，同时，夜空中叠印以风格化的幻想：假透视街道、霓虹灯装饰、手绘背景板、摆动的聚光灯束、快节奏摇摄、乐队与舞者共同组成光彩炫目的都市。而在筹备暗杀的段落中，由于秘密计划男主不时陷入道德焦虑，负罪感引发的心理争斗以及妻子隐忍的个性都要求一种更为克制含蓄的表演（这在计划实施前一段时间最为突出），同时画面中以摩登女幽灵与湖水的叠印传达人物情绪。幽会与筹备两段因此呈现较大的风格差异，同时也宣示着好莱坞对同时期欧陆两股风格源流强大的吸纳能力。此外，在前往城市的列车上，一面玻璃隔开被摄人物和摄影机，观众在摄影机侧便能同时看见人物与映入玻璃的窗外风景的倒影，这构成一种实体的光学叠印（《雪国》中也有眼睛与窗外灯火的叠印），但没看出什么作用，车里太挤了可能。湖面场景中，男女主搭乘小舟时，一只计划外的狗意外闯进画面，提供影片短暂的悬疑点，也作为一种超自然力量：不曾提供动机也未曾言明地，狗似乎洞悉了男主的秘密计划，这种超人的力量对男主备受煎熬的内心进行审判；湖面群起的水鸟使女主感到不安；最后的列车铃，显而易见也作为道德警铃阻止了男主的行凶动作，茂瑙并没有通过扭曲场景或镜头外化人物主观性，而是以一种传统戏剧中对符号的运用来合理化男女主心理转变，此外，在进入都市游历的情节中，教堂的钟声引导男女主进入婚礼现场，也见证了二人的和解，矛盾的解决按面包-鲜花-泪水-钟声循序渐进，这几个符号应该不是乱设的但我看不大出来。茂瑙对同一符号的戏剧式活用在《最卑贱的人》中便有所显露（外套），影片中的灯芯草从杀妻计划的一环到风暴中妻子求生工具的转变也承载的相似的戏剧化功能。有趣的是这个故事以都市人到乡村度假引发矛盾，却在村中的夫妻去往城市度假解决矛盾，结尾也可以视为多结局的，妻子活命与否、都市女郎被掐死与否，假如妻子或都市女死了男主又该面临怎样的审判，各指向全然不同的解读。记得片尾字幕滚完恰好赶上当天日出，可惜也没看着

电影《日出》用日出日落时的昏暗光亮比喻世上婚姻的模态，而两位主角的关系正如红日的轨迹，经历至暗时刻后在终局迎来光明，也让观者沉醉迷失在最后光耀四射的幸福之中。不过当我们把三人的关系落实到生活中，放下对艺术作品美满结局的追求，仅用世俗的目光审慎观之，它又如何不像日蚀时分。我们知道，当月球、太阳和地球三者处在一条直线，月球会挡住太阳射向地球的光，月球身后的黑影落到地球，这时发生日蚀。从影片引申出来，三者分别代指农妇人、城市女人和农夫。

作为月球，农妇人自从被地球吸引就只能围着地球旋转，一旦地球不再接受太阳的光芒，自身也会随之暗淡。在当时的婚姻中，妻子无疑是以丈夫为中心生活的，而她们是无力抗争的，就像妇人在知晓丈夫出门寻欢作乐时只能回房搂着孩子徒自流泪。有意思的是这里农妇人的扮相颇像西班牙的Macarena圣母，哭泣时眼中没有怨恨，没有愤怒，在切近的镜头里满是她的失神，甚至哀怜，让观者不禁羞愧自省自身是否有犯下相同罪恶。这神情也恰合她的不作为，不会去质问争取，因为她更害怕的是丈夫抛家弃子。试想若地球结束对月球的引力，那月球便会在离心运动中经历撞击后陨灭，换言之，纠缠对方的出轨反而让她自身脱轨，妇人的生活只会彻底失控。类比到这，我们便不必用现代的平权意识去苛责女主人公的逆来顺受，在时代背景的强力前提下，忍受称得上是不二选择。

作为太阳，城市女人是自放光芒的。一开场导演便让她撩起裙摆随意敞开腿，等待仆人为她整理鞋履。

黑大衣能盖住她的性感睡衣却遮不住她光洁裸露的双腿，这既暗示其放浪的性格又满足观者的偷窥欲。手夹着烟，她在烟雾缭绕中精心准备与情人的会面，很难不让人把这一情景与开篇车站里的蒸汽联想在一起：我们看不清女人的身姿，也看不清火车的模样，却被其吸引。确实，她来自城市，在仅有的两场戏中，导演都用吸烟时的气雾氤氲和都市报纸强调她城市女人这一身份，她是现代化的受益者，时尚、美丽且诱人。影片中的她也像个女妖时时刻刻魅惑着人们去往城市，而人们往往难以自持。

于是乎，二元对立便在这两位女性身上建构起来，片中农妇人所代表乡村和丽人所代表城市之间的冲突是我们无法忽视的。农妇人的质朴纯真，城市女人的娇媚妖艳，分别将乡村与城市的特点具像化，促成身后所代表的两大生活形式的戏剧性碰撞。

乡村生活如月光般皎洁，宁静而美好。在仆人对两位主人公过去生活追忆感叹的画面中，女人相夫教子，男人耕作劳动，闲暇时一家人围坐在乡间草丛中其乐融融，是那么无忧无虑，两人也是那么亲密无间。这便是田园生活的极大好处，人们能享受自然的乐趣，家庭生活也是幸福祥和。而与之相对立的城市生活的现代化，像日光一样夺目，随之而来的火车鸣笛声却尖锐刺穿原有的平静。男主角的移情别恋，女主角的垂泪悲苦，家庭的分崩离析，始作俑者便是那城市来的不速之客。我们不难看出导演对两种生活模式取向的明显倾向，撇开影片来谈，这也许和二次工业革命时导演生活的德国环境严重污染有关，那时人们对现代化的态度普遍由积极转为忧虑，这种环境焦虑也让人们对原始的乡村生活有了更加的向往。城市女人为了自己和男主人公私会提议杀害乡村妇人，会利用性来安抚对方达到目的，你可以评价她不择手段工于心计，无独有偶，现代化也为了达到目的不惜牺牲环境，而乡村便如农妇一样承受着、任其宰割，在蒸汽浓烟中被迫失去本色。但城市化的愿望图景再勾人也会暴露其冰冷无人性的本质，大衣就算能遮蔽城市女人的酮体也不能束缚住她伸出赤裸的双腿，道德的外衣被她摒弃，操行被她践踏在脚下，她在纵欲者和刽子手之间自由转换，可以柔情似水也能草菅人命，而这些，也是城市的代笔。

作为地球，男人既以自我为中心自转也绕着太阳公转。与妇人相比，他是何等的自私，也正是因为婚姻生活以他为主要，他能肆无忌惮地约会情人。在偷情时他会有怯意吗，不会，他是家庭支柱，就算他锈蚀得厉害也不会被更换，他的首要追求便是自身享乐。与此同时，城市女人对他的吸引是天生的，对他的诱惑是必然的，毕竟玉女能让人心生怜惜，而荡妇却让人心驰神往。只消主动献上几个香吻，她便能让男人沉溺在情欲之海中，同意谋杀自己良善的妻子。且除却性的引诱，其背后城市里纸醉金迷的生活也紧紧抓住了男人的心。当两人躺在草丛中透过雾气幻想都市生活，那里灯红酒绿热闹非凡，委实比与妻子苦守农场的单调生活迷人得多，所以上面提到的二元对立也呈现在男主的身上，在这一次较量中，城市化压倒性胜出，于是他应允了情人的提议，接过了求独活的芦草。

我们庆幸男人在最后时刻做了对的选择，但却思考不清什么是迫使他悬崖勒马的动力，是杀人的恐惧，是道德的限制，还是对妻子的爱，我们不得而知。也许黑狗的吠声拉回了他的理智，妻子畏惧的神情让他停手，而作为观者我只觉得这一转变似乎过于生硬，惧意、善意和爱意都表现不足，均难以支撑起这一强转折，实在是遗憾。

提到内容，电影描述了爱人回心转意后两人和好如初动人故事，在其中乡村最终比城市更胜一筹，男人选择回归田园的安逸生活，可我们却能窥探出其中的暗波涌动。先不论男人临时放弃谋杀计划动机的缺位，仅看他和妻子和好的过程便可见一斑：他们在城市中重拾爱意和激情。在火车上男人悔恨，在照相馆里两人亲吻，在游乐场中共舞，如此种种，都在城市这一背景下完成。不能否认现代化带来的新意为两人提供了心理上的刺激，事实上人们也容易将这种新环境的刺激误认为对爱人欲火重燃，退一步说即使两人真是重归于好，城市的作用也不容置疑。或许连导演自身都没想见到无论他对片中二元对立所持的天平如何倾斜，其中体现出的城市化到来与对人的吸引已成历史定局。或许他也对这一矛盾难有解决的良策，于是安排这两位女人深知对方的威胁却并未见面，而这结尾便是茂瑙知不可为而为之的聊以自慰罢了。

最后，我们回归现实，这样完满的结局能有多少呢，男人对妻子重回的激情能持续多久呢，我的答案是，它仅仅和日蚀时刻一样短暂而不可求。月球能多少次挡住太阳的光辉呢，几十年少有一次，日蚀时刻过后，地球仍沐浴阳光深受太阳吸引，月球仍复归黑暗围绕地球转动。而月球能做的，便是珍藏这一次机遇，好在下一个日蚀来临前自我慰藉度过永夜。

第一次犹豫，叠化镜头直接展现人物心理感受，给出心理转变理由，下定决心行动。第二次，最后关头的转变，用内心的钟声传达。片中的第二次钟声响起则是宣告两人和解、重拾旧爱的时刻。大马路上旁若无人的吻。镜头拍的是水上的芦苇杆，却能传达出绝望与悲伤。无愧默片时代最佳之一。大概是影史上第一部从某种维度审视而呈现为完美形态的爱情题材影片？这个维度大概是保守、传统道德与家庭观念下的爱情价值取向。在这种可能更多是美好幻想的观念里，男主战胜了第三者的邪恶诱惑从而守住了忠诚，并且一定要设计这样一次最惊险的遭遇，使男女主经历生死的考验进而确证这份爱情的坚贞不渝。落水的女主角没有死却也如再生了一般，因为这种生死交际处的强烈情感波动无疑唤醒与更新了那可能随时间流逝与平庸生活而日渐显示其乏味的“真爱”。这便是我指其为幻想的原因，因为这样的高潮情节——生离死别之考验不太能在现实中发生，而且作为一部电影，它只能停留在这大悲又大喜的圆满结尾之处，它本来也明白，那其后的漫长岁月以及相伴而生的也许还会复苏的矛盾或裂痕，它是无力也根本不需要解决的。对于要讨观众电影喜欢或者编织幻想的电影来说，故事讲到这里就已经是全部，以后的世界本来是不存在的。这似乎便成为这部杰作的遗憾之所，一个童话故事般的结尾，放在现代理性地来看已不太能有说服力。当然在电影所给出的如此美妙的一百分钟充满真实感受的童话体验之后，我们也就不会苛责了。最主要还是茂瑙调动一切奇妙又美好的镜头所营造的这个光影迷梦太美好了，而且最妙的它还是一部黑白无声电影，使他免去了一些可能的艳俗之感（华丽的布景、粘腻的对白等）。在如今再制造这样一个朴素的爱情童话已很难获得所谓专业评论者的赞誉，但在1927年，默片时代的茂瑙（尽管掺入了一些明显迎合市场而破坏整体性的相对俗套的喜剧桥段）却是可以实现的。

德国表现主义大师茂瑙（1888——1931）的默片，总是看不厌，隔段时间就会看看。《吸血僵尸》《最后一笑》《禁忌》都是他的经典之作。而被奉为默片时代最伟大的爱情片就是他拍于1925年的《日出》，被英国权威杂志《视与听》评为世界十大经典片之一。该片在第一届奥斯卡奖项上就获得过最佳摄影、最佳女主角和艺术质量特别奖。

茂瑙于1926年加入好莱坞，《日出》是他在好莱坞的第一部作品。1931年他为了挣脱好莱坞的束缚，与弗拉哈迪一起在浩瀚的太平洋塔希提小岛拍出了轰动国际影坛的《禁忌》。得承认，这是我看过拍得最美最令人心碎的默片，乃集大成的诗画片的绝世之作。而这，只说《日出》。

《日出》改编自赫尔曼·苏德曼的小说《狄尔西特的旅行》，自始至终体现了诗意影片的所有元素，亦充满了救赎的意味。夜阑人静的静谧湖面、浓雾笼罩的草屋、呀呀稚童不停抓闹的手指、老人一惊一乍的表情、城市女轻狂的口哨、窗花透过的剪影、静寂泥沼中奔跑的水花、叮当电车奔驰在山野、城市流动的人群车流以及暴风骤雨下的一叶小舟等等，都如一行行诗画跃动在观众面前。

而长镜头、移动镜头的相互交叉及近景、远景与叠影的稳定运用，都让影片萦绕在一个平缓、安详又波澜不惊的氛围中。而柔和光线所呈现的精致、散淡和简约，即或这部影片已过近百年，仍无懈可击，足可成为光影运用的最佳范例。

当然，我们还别忘了片中的男女主人公的那些简朴、阵痛又浓烈的爱情故事。乡间年轻的农夫（乔治·奥布里恩出演），本有一个深爱他漂亮又贤惠的妻子（珍妮·特盖纳出演），偏他走火入魔，爱上了一个勾魂的城市女，相约制造一起水上事故，让农夫借出游为名来淹死妻子，以达到双飞的目的。在静谧的河面上，他看到柔弱的妻子终不忍下手，妻子却发现了他的狠心伎俩，而伤心的逃上岸，并跳上了刚开来的一辆电动火车，小伙也一路追悔莫及地跑上去。

到了茫茫人海的大城市，如同一对可怜入林的孤鸟，从参加人家婚礼的教堂出来后，她终于原谅他了。接下来的一天，他俩一起度过了人生最美好的时光，用光了所有的钱，在欢呼雀跃的城市人面前，二人跳了激动人心的农家舞，出来后，他理了发，照了有生以来的夫妻亲吻照。这是照相师偷拍下来的，他说你是我今年见过的最美新娘。妻子的俏皮可爱，越发激起了农夫的深爱。他俩决定趁着月华的夜色划船渡河回家。

在宁静的河面上，他轻轻地划着船，而她抱着鲜花幸福的睡着了。哪知飓风来临，小船被打翻，尽管他奋力保护她，但船还是被巨浪冲走打散。被冲上岸的他忙叫来村里人呼救，可无济于事，只找到他之前抱上船两捆已散失的柴杆。他痛哭失声。

这时，城市女以为他实现了计划，就如往常一样吹起了口哨，怒中火烧的他上来紧紧掐住她，这时听到老人喊他说你的妻子找到了找到了，他听到立马松手转身跑去（好在松手及时，否则城市女也不会安然无恙的独自离开村子）。妻子被一个不愿放弃的老头救了，幸亏他那两捆曾想淹死她的柴杆，才让她得以在水中挣扎漂流。第二天，日出了，幼子吮吸着小手指，他俩的美好生活才刚刚开始，而经历暴风雨后的爱情将更长久。

令人痛心的是，在1931年茂瑙拍完《禁忌》首映前的一周死于车祸，终年才43岁。如同2012年1月25日安哲罗普洛斯被摩托车撞倒不幸身故一样，大师们（包括英年早逝的塔可夫斯基和基耶斯洛夫斯基）如普通人一样离去，却留给我们无尽的伤怀。遗憾的是他们的生命戛然而止而不能拍摄更多的好电影，欣慰的是他们拍出的诸多好电影留给我们慢慢抚平时光的伤痛。

2013、8、2

选自海天出版社出版的影评集《看不见的电影》