深锁春光一院愁

《深锁春光一院愁》: 完成度非常高，台词设置精巧，画面色彩鲜明。 这么忧伤动人的剧情，带来的艰难与抉择堪比初三时看《罗马假日》。看了一点后意识到启发了托德海因斯的《远离天堂》。但远离天堂似乎才是现实，没有happy ending. 中产阶级妇女都爱园丁。洛克哈德森的脸简直了，完美得跟雕塑一样。这张脸自高三起一直贴在我屋子，某期《看电影》杂志里的小海报。 和《蔚蓝深海》一样，医生都扮演知心大哥的角色:因为逃避，所以头痛。你甚至比过去更加孤独。你高尚的牺牲有什么意义呢。如果他真爱我，他会来找我的。不！你要是爱他，你该去找他！You are ready for a love affair,but not for love. 要是坐在电影院大银幕前，定会在光影之中泪流满面吧。 It won't be easy时甚至想起John and Yoko. 经典台词: 有你在的地方就是家。你回家来了。 多少人都生活在平静的绝望中。 She doesnt want to make her own mind,no girl does.She wants you to make up for her. ironic:1.女儿满嘴弗洛伊德，研究社会学心理学，分析各种案例。看起来很先锋很自由，说寡妇不该被埋葬，这又不是古埃及，要活出自我，不在乎别人的想法。但到自己身上就行不通了。是个彻底的理论派。 罗恩是彻底的行动派。这是罗恩的bible吗。不，罗恩的bible就是活出自我。他从来不会让不重要的东西变得重要。活出真正的自我。安全感源于自我，无法被带走。VIP-very independent person. 2.电视机。孤独的老女人最后的避难所。只要轻轻旋转按钮，戏剧，喜剧，生活，就在你的指缝中展开。 关于什么是自私，什么是活出自我，究竟如何判定。自私不过是忠于内心的另一种表达方式。 儿女、罗恩哪个不自私呢。上一秒他们还说你自私，下一秒你无私了，你的无私就恰恰被他们的自私所利用。 鹿 很多事情答案很简单，但你要用很久才可以想明白。那不是一夜就能figure out的。

真没想到我也有要写长评的一天，虽然单纯是因为短评字数放不下......

电影用极具戏剧性的剧情为底，而如梦中童话一般的色调与分镜，随时压抑的你至死的派对，穿插的瓦尔登湖与社会学都使这部“肥皂剧”看起来不止止只是一部单纯的披着姐弟恋还有寡妇文学tag的cult文学。它对爱情与女性的解放写的要更深入一些。又或者像是后来的剪刀手爱德华与廊桥遗梦的结合，不被允许的，而又汹涌的爱。

它是只供男女主爱情的童话，Cary第一次去到Ron为她改造的那个小木屋时，蓝色幽静灯光下、巨大落地窗前的吻美的让人想要把时间全部暂停在这一刻。超越年龄与阶级的爱情是多么的多不可思议。坠入是不可避免，沉溺是春天该做的事情，可是此时此刻什么样的背景勾勒都不重要，因为爱情便是这样早有预谋的被温柔的用一个吻来揭露开。

（此处Cary突然清醒过来，强装镇定的收拾东西匆忙离开时把那个茶壶打碎的时候我感觉我心也碎一地了......）

此处应有bgm：Can't Help Falling in Love - Haley Reinhart

它同时又是一场真实的现实场景。Cary带Ron参加聚会的那段剧情太好了，大家都看到她，下意识认为Cary就是一个贪图肉体的荡妇，而Ron是那个不知羞耻的贪图Cary钱财的穷鬼。所有人都要求Cary做那个传统的人，这样他们的生活才会延续下去，但却没有一个人在乎Cary的内心。ps：人物台词方面设置的太好了，那个长舌妇可真懂说话艺术啊.....

无论是钢琴上还是电视机投射出来的cary的倒影都让人觉得太孤独太压抑了www

好在结局还是he，女儿的爱情点醒了Cary：分离与争吵之后才意识到你是多么的离不开对方。

Ron：You've come home? Cary: Yes, I've.......I've come home.

结局的Ron一醒来就说这句话真是浪漫死我了.......

总之满分的电影，值得一看。不知道为什么豆瓣评分这么低，是因为我比较坚定的爱情沉沦主义吗？

还有一些关于cary女性解放的就不说了，虽然很想说来着。。。。。。

Douglas Sirk once said: “This is the dialectic—there is a very short distance between high art and trash, and trash that contains an element of craziness is by this very quality nearer to art.” When All That Heaven Allows was released by Universal Pictures in 1955, it was just another critically unnoticed Hollywood genre product, designed to appeal to the trashy “women’s weepie” audience. Now, in retrospect, it is considered to be closer to the art side of Sirk’s dialectic, and one of his key films. But this is part of a wider process of critical reevaluation in which his entire body of work has been rediscovered and reappraised by successive generations of filmmakers and historians.

No one seeing the film at the time of its release would have imagined its director to be an elegant, extremely erudite European whose career started in the theater of Weimar Germany and who was an early director of Bertolt Brecht’s The Threepenny Opera. After a short but successful career at UFA studios in the vacuum left by the massive emigration of Jewish talent after the Nazis came to power in 1933, Sirk made his way to Hollywood, directing his first film there in 1942. Following an unsuccessful attempt to return to Germany in 1949–50, he signed a contract with Universal. His movie career then culminated with his highest-profile films, the melodramas of 1952–58. By 1959, he was Universal’s most successful director. At that very moment, he left moviemaking and America. Until his death in 1987, he and his wife, Hilde, lived in Lugano, Switzerland.

All That Heaven Allows marks the final turning point in Sirk’s strange and varied career. On the back of Magnificent Obsession’s success the previous year, Universal gave him a budget and freedom that enabled his mature style to blossom. All That Heaven Allows contains all the elements of characteristically Sirkian composition: light, shade, color, and camera angles combine with his trademark use of mirrors to break up the surface of the screen. Here are all the components of the “melodramatic” style on which Sirk’s critical reputation is based and that has made him the favorite of later generations of filmmakers, from Rainer Werner Fassbinder to Quentin Tarantino, from John Waters to Pedro Almodóvar.

But at the time, Universal was just anxious to repeat its successful pairing of Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson in a romance between an older woman and an extremely handsome younger man. Wyman was still a big star but, by then, past her prime. Recently divorced from Ronald Reagan, and aware that her future lay with the soap-opera audience, she was pleased to be teamed with Hudson again. At the time, he was the new Hollywood heartthrob, who, although “out of the closet” in his personal life, had to be continually shut back in publicly and professionally by an anxious studio.

The All That Heaven Allows version of the May-September romance formula has Wyman playing Cary Scott, a well-to-do widow with two college-age children and a dull social life at the country club. The emptiness at the heart of her existence is filled when she meets Ron Kirby, the young gardener–turned–tree farmer who prunes the trees that line her all-American suburban yard—and then comes back to court her. This simple love story is disrupted by the vicious snobbery of her children and high-society acquaintances. Early in the film, Cary is at her dressing table, preparing for an evening with the Stoningham “elite.” To one side stands a vase containing the branches Ron cut for her earlier, so that Cary’s awakening interest in him carries over from the previous sequence. In a beautifully composed shot, the children first appear reflected in the mirror, coming between Cary and the vase, and then, as the camera pulls away, she is taken back into the room and toward the children. This one shot tells the story of the dilemma that Cary will face for the rest of the film and is typical of Sirk’s emblematic, economical use of cinema. His stars’ performances mesh well with this style. He gives them the screen space appropriate for their status, but the sexual charge between Cary and Ron is articulated through looks and gestures, and the roller-coaster highs and lows of their love are displaced onto the things that surround them.

Objects play their own significant part in expressing the emotions blocked by convention in small-town, middle-class 1950s America. Sirk creates a cinema in which the screen itself speaks more articulately than the protagonists, tongue-tied as they are by the codes of their fictional setting, the powers of censorship in Hollywood at the time, and the norms of the family melodrama genre. Out of these constraints, Sirk builds his film, while also using a typically melodramatic score to punctuate points and to accompany the tones and textures of the actors’ voices.

Years after their initial dismissal (and sometimes derision) by reviewers, Sirk’s successful string of big-budget soapers (and the director himself) have acquired a rich and complex critical afterlife, as different aspects and facets of the films have been reclaimed by successive phases of film criticism. For the auteurists and structuralists of the 1960s, Sirk’s mastery of cinematic language transcended the working conditions of the Hollywood studio system; feminists reclaimed him as a director of melodrama, with his women protagonists and dramas of interiority, domestic space, and sexual desire; gay critics today see a camp subtext in his films with Hudson, in which ambiguous situations can be read as double entendre.

The gap between the contemporary perception of All That Heaven Allows and that of the later critics is closed by Sirk himself, who once explained the conditions of work at the studio: “At least I was allowed to work on the material—so that I restructured to some extent some of the rather impossible scripts of the films I had to direct. Of course, I had to go by the rules, avoid experiments, stick to family fare, have ‘happy endings,’ and so on. Universal didn’t interfere with either my camera work or my cutting—which meant a lot to me.” Although All That Heaven Allows does, on the face of it, have a happy ending, its “happiness” is twisted with more than a touch of Sirkian irony. This piece originally appeared in the Criterion Collection’s 2001 DVD edition of All That Heaven Allows.

Jun 10, 2014

摘自CC官网：//www.criterion.com/current/posts/96-all-that-heaven-allows-an-articulate-screen

深锁春光一院愁：美国的裂缝

《深锁春光一院愁》上映于1955年，彼时，美国刚刚获得二战红利，成为真正的世界霸主，在国内形成了庞大的中产阶级（最多的时候这个群体占社会总人口的百分之八十五），嬉皮士运动尚未发生，整个美国处于富足而稳定的状态，中产阶级作为社会构成中最保守的部分，形成了相对应的保守传统文化，在这样的社会里，女性的职责就是照顾好家庭的每个成员，另外再负责貌美如花。凯瑞就是这庞大的“美国甜心”群体中的一员。

凯瑞四十多岁，美丽善良知性，风韵犹存，丈夫去世，育有一儿一女，儿女长大，即将离去。她尽职尽责地照顾着这个家，过着传统规定的生活，不敢逾越半步。

一切看起来好极了。

直到小她十几岁的罗恩闯入她平静稳定的生活。

罗恩是已故的老园丁的儿子，高达强壮英俊帅气，但是贫穷。

“一切看起来好极了”，凯瑞客套地对罗恩说。

“并没有很多”，罗恩直言。

罗恩带着不同于她的异质性走进她的生活，自然吸引了她的兴趣。开始她处于礼貌和习惯和他交谈，几句下来便不自觉地被他吸引，他们聊起了树。

他给她剪下一枝金雨树，她插在花瓶里。

爱情在萌芽

“埃及传统是什么？”凯瑞问女儿。

“把寡妇连同其他的财产活活封死在她丈夫的墓室。理论上，她也是财产，应该陪他一起死，部落负责这件事。当然那不再发生了，不是吗？”

“是么？也许不在埃及了。”

事实上，她也是财产，正在被陪葬。部落正在负责这件事。

他邀请她去他家做客，她先是下意识地拒绝，随后改口。

她从城市走入了他的乡村。

浮华必是泡沫，泡沫必然被打破。

在他家里，她开心地像个小女孩。他待他像珍宝。

“为什么每个人都那么像成功，如果一个人不他的同伴步伐一致，或许是因为他听见了不同的曲调，让他跟着听到的音乐而行，无论多么的有节奏，还是多么遥远”。

“我想，现在的日子，所有的人都在寻找安全，像许多人一样，如果有钱和地位就会有安全，然后，他遇到了罗恩，他什么也没有，看起来也不需要，他困惑不解，答案很简单，迈克花了很多时间才想出来”。

“答案是什么？”

“活出真的自我，那就是罗恩，罗恩的安全来着他自己，谁也带不走，罗恩不会让不重要的事情变得重要。”

她羡慕他，爱他，像活的像他，但她没有真正理解他，她也不能成为他。

他看出了她的顾虑，“你在回避很重要的东西，因为你害怕”。

“怕什么？”

“很多东西”。

她害怕的是她的家，她的孩子，以及周围人的眼光。

卖电视的和她相遇在门口。

“我对电视不感兴趣”，她说，她的心里全是他。

他向她求婚，她犹豫了。

她摔碎了他精心为她拼凑的瓷壶，她很内疚，“你花了那么多时间修它。”

“没关系”。

罗恩不会让不重要的东西变得重要。

“两个相爱的人想要结婚，那应该很简单”。

“如果你不害怕”。

如果你不害怕

她还是没法迈出那一步，他们分开了。

儿女们还是给她买来了电视，“戏剧，喜剧，生活就在你的指缝中展开。”

多诱人的广告词，就像她以前的生活，华丽精致，同时 ，又是那么的无趣。

如果电影停留在此处，将是极致的悲剧。

可这里是好莱坞，终究还是逃不出大团圆式结局。

在我心里，电影就停留在此处，就像我第一次看到那个意味深长的镜头：

凯瑞呆呆地望着电视画面中反射出的自己。

像一个盒子，困住了凯瑞。

这就是美国的裂缝，阶级，传统，党同伐异。

也是整个世界的裂缝。

鲁迅有句经典的反问，娜拉出走以后呢？（娜拉是易卜生作品《玩偶之家》里的角色）

我很愿意相信凯瑞和罗恩像电影里那样“有情人终成眷属”。可这很可能不会发生。

All That Heaven Allows是本片的英文片名，“天堂允许的一切”。

如果电影是梦的天堂，让它发生未尝不可。

我们恐惧的，不过是恐惧本身。

如果你不害怕。

剧情上除了两个问题以外其余都很棒 1.kirby到底喜欢Carrie什么？ 2.kirby到底成长没有？在Carrie说结束之前kirby一举一动就好像个神人一样，波澜不惊，自信满满。Carrie离开后他懊恼的动作或许是整部电影中他感情波动表现的最明显的镜头。当然你可以看到影片对他自然地生活方式是推崇的，但对他对待别人的方式却有所批判。比如他总是让别人对自己的生活做主，却不知有时候女人不希望仅凭自己拿主意。 但是他对此没做出任何行动，或许导演只是觉得这是kirby顺从内心带来的一点副作用罢了，并不需要特别提出来批判一下。 到了最后，kirby受伤，Carrie到他家照顾他时，遇见k的那位女性朋友，carrie却又像第一次到她家做客的时候那样说起kirby，完全是重复甚至强调那时的观点。而这与kirby，剧情发生的东西是冲突的。所以，我很是不解