雏菊1966

重复旋转的涡轮，漫无目的的飞机，一团迷糊的炮火，尖锐而规律的号角。横亘欧洲的铁幕在前，一切工业符号都有了足够的理由出现，炮弹在号角声中飞驰，燃烧，坠落，流弹入海。

画面一转，我们看见两位少女正坐在海边的沙滩上。

她们没有色彩，没有动作，每一个姿势都伴随着微妙的吱呀声，让人联想到捷克的木偶传统。她们就麻木而天真地坐在那里。玛丽二号吹响了一声号角，说，ani na mi to jde（我才不在乎）,玛丽一号接话，tak co nám jde（我们能做些什么），玛丽二号放下号角，nic nám nejde（我们什么也做不了）。

一闪而过的高楼崩塌，玛丽一号戴上花环，玛丽二号遗忘了号角。在彼此商量“要成为坏女人”之后，以玛丽二号给玛丽一号的一巴掌为转场，她们来到了有果子、有色彩的伊甸园，随之无姿态地如孩童一般起舞，玛丽二号咬了一口果子，第三个场景出现在她们的公寓里。

公寓

电影伊始再不能让人想得更多了。彼时世界被划分为两大阵营，冷战及不信任带来的军备竞赛，工业大社会生产之下异化的个人，斯大林主义背后操纵的集体思想。然而作者并未偏颇任何主义，而是站在人的境况当中谛观一切，且不予以意见。

置身在微尘与宏大的反复之间（具体表现为毫无预备的转场画面），纵然Věra Chytilová有意运用feminism的目光，但更多的依旧是普世情感。Věra本人也在采访中反复表示，她觉得自己不像女权主义者，在她的电影中寻找女权主义信息是最浅薄的解读方式。

回到最初，汲汲营营的涡轮像一盘吸尘机，毫不留情地抽离我们所谓的一切自我，使我们成为每一颗无足轻重的螺丝钉，甚至生活也要伴随着号角进行。可总有一天我们会想，如此这般的工作是为了什么呢？在高楼坠毁之前，我们显然不能够知道答案，因为一切对玛丽而言都是虚无的，直到大厦倾覆，危机才有迹可循。

终于，脱节的人变成了具体的人（要变得越来越坏），玛丽们忽然有了大胆放纵的力量（因欲念，从我们什么也做不了到偷吃果子觉得是再正常不过的事情），却更加自然快乐了，这时世界方有色彩，即便从伊甸园坠落到公寓（人间）。这是玛丽（女人们）欲念的具象化。不变的是依旧没有人理解她们，如同没有任何人能够理解彼此一样。

如此这般的工作是为了什么呢？

但是玛丽一号和玛丽二号不工作，所以她们想方设法获取食物。

玛丽二号频频和年长的男人约会，她戴着玛丽一号为她挑的丝巾，掩饰活泼的天性，装作恬静温柔的样子与男人谈话，而后玛丽一号现身，称她是玛丽二号的姐姐，肆无忌惮地点单，借此机会不顾形象地大吃大喝，而后再一齐送男人去火车站，扬长而去，进行下一个轮回。

她们服装一黑一白，长相成熟的玛丽一号戴着花环，一席白裙，长相幼态的玛丽二号环绕丝巾，一身黑裙，在此后的故事当中，她们频繁变换服饰，但只有花环和丝巾贯穿始终。就服装、长相而言，玛丽一号和玛丽二号显然是男人印象的一体两面，制作者将其进行了错位倒置，加剧了电影的荒诞感。

由于男女关系的故事浮现，人们往往倾向于联系父权社会下的女性处境，不过这似乎也是一种刻板印象，并恰恰也是Věra所嘲弄的符号标签，是她电影最表层的部分。她以此为武器，嘲弄了观看她电影并试图从刻板印象出发的所有解释。尽管暗示着女性的自主思想，电影提出女性应该离开家庭和社会角色的约制，寻找自身在父权社会被弱化的独立意志，但玛丽们作为想象中的女性角色，她们的伊甸园中并无亚当，因此不存在作为男人肋骨而被创建出来的前提，故而也不依附于任何一个男人。尽管用着男人的钱财贪飨不已，但这只是出于世俗的交易——男人欲念的具象化。比起划分阵营，Věra把男女双方的印象都极致标签化，那些故事是如此真实又是如此不真实，仿佛流动的话语和口号，她要针对的只有那个掌握话语权的人选。

玛丽一号也进行了约会。这次是在一个收集蝴蝶标本的男人公寓。他一再向她表白，她以蝴蝶标本为挟，反复脱离掌控，只问身边有没有食物。蝴蝶标本、报纸上漂亮女性的图片拼贴皆暗含男性对女性的情欲，女性应符合男性所渴望的模样，即纯洁的样貌、处女、服从男性、漂亮的身材等。嗓音高亢，举止幼稚，是男人们生活中“期待的”，因为他们没有意识到两个女人的故意行为。

而伊甸园的禁果、花等除了具象化为贪食之外，亦隐喻着女性对自我情欲的追求。同样的，玛丽二号在与老男人约会之时，老男人虽克制，但也在进食，男女的欲望本质上是一致的，饮食男女，贪食色相。玛丽一号用蝴蝶标本遮掩三点，男人低声求她取走，正暗合这一点。而这一幕的精彩之处则在于模糊结局的后续，玛丽一号与玛丽二号继续玩乐，听着打来电话男人所说的情话，把挂在墙上的纸带和香肠烧掉，一一剪掉烤好的香肠、鸡蛋（男人的情欲象征）——她们都对男人没有欲望。也许她们是爱着对方的。

一同泡澡

后来，玛丽一号和玛丽二号准备泡澡，“这就是我不明白的，为什么会有人说我爱你，你明白吗？”“为什么你会这么说而不是用鸡蛋来替代呢？”，她们将鸡蛋打碎，在浴缸里倒满牛奶，把报纸上剪下的男人纸像压入牛奶当中，玛丽一号看着沉下去的男人纸像，“就像是，有人不在了。”“你的意思是死了吗？”，她们一边泡澡一边进食，同时对生与死、存在与不存在进行哲学思考。“是的，拿你举例。”“我？他更喜欢你。”“现在我们坐在这里，想象一下，这不是我们。这太愚蠢了。”“谁告诉你这是我们？谁告诉你，你真的存在呢？”“你。”“是的，这是真的。”

再后来她们去了乡下，农民没有注意到玛丽一号和玛丽二号，一群骑自行车的工人从她们身边同样不在意地经过，玛丽一号和玛丽二号开始怀疑自己是否已经消失了。不过她们去偷玉米并且捣乱至一地鸡毛时，她们又确信了自己的存在。回到公寓，她们用被子卷起对方，用剪刀把彼此剪开，同时窃窃私语，“真高兴我们回家了。”“去死，去死，去死。”“你在燃烧，我在燃烧，我们在燃烧。”“你觉得过得如何？”“不要这样对待我，你知道我爱你。”“我们会发生什么事，我们会发生什么事，我们会发生什么事。”“我们缺乏任何证据。”“我们不要走更多的路了，好吗？”，从而成就电影的另一幕波普平面主义高潮。

似有若无的话语逻辑，分解的肢体与纸片，极具视觉与话语的冲击。作为讨论的命题，欲念和虚无都被明显地提了出来。“爱（欲）”与“鸡蛋”的价值观冲突，“存在”与“虚无”的证明方法，最后，用棉被包裹自己，用剪刀撕碎彼此。为什么要说我爱你而不是用鸡蛋来替代呢？他们只想消费她们罢了。

虚虚实实，真真假假，无一不愚嘲着表面之下虚伪，被滥用的自由话语，以及这个撒谎的世界。用天真的破坏欲来击穿现实的逻辑话语，她们此刻犹如化身战争，坦克碾碎引以为豪的人文主义，原子弹炸沉那些公共道德，不计其数的尸体走路，说话，只有玫瑰会唱歌，但艳丽的玫瑰本真也是刺。她们打碎鸡蛋进行沐浴，喝浴缸里的牛奶，超出美味享受的范围亦或者说是生理需求的界限（尤在下一幕体现最甚），食物成为堕落本源的象征，是七宗罪之一，是对权力与话语的渴望，是人心虚无的体现。

在世俗的伊甸园故事当中，禁果是情欲的体现，爱是存在的证明，她们就深情而严肃地说，“你知道我爱你”，与前文“谁告诉你这是我们？谁告诉你，你真的存在呢？”“你。”“是的，这是真的。”相印证，很难不去猜测，这是为了对抗虚无而说出的借口，因前方农民与工人的漠视，她们除了撒落一地玉米穗，用客观世界反证自身之外，只能与同一维度的玛丽相爱（没有人关心她们，爱她们，证明其存在），又或许这是一对不为世俗所容的同性恋，在父权异性恋的世界里挣扎，无论如何，“我们不要走更多的路了，好吗？”，已然预示了一个终点，随后她们把彼此剪碎，在存在与虚无中来回翻覆，Věra使用了大量彩色滤镜、波普手法、蒙太奇手段，不乏让吕克戈达尔的痕迹，但她在某种程度上的确在与她们共舞。被撕碎的不仅是自我，也是一切，国家，社会，被重新缝补的也是这些，极尽绚烂当中我们看见的却只有虚无，两个少女仿佛伊甸园之果喂养而出的恶之花，在思想和行动上，恶劣地破坏一切看得见的规则游戏，既包括她们自己和故事逻辑，也包括观影者的思维。

她们没有走更多的路了，玛丽一号和玛丽二号乘坐机器来到一个奢华的大厅，当中有一大桌丰盛的食物，或许是某场共产主义领导高层行将举行的聚会。她们用手尝着不同的食物，不停更换座位以便得到美食，贪食在这一部分当中得到淋漓尽致的体现，不仅如此，她们脱光衣服，无意识地肆意挥霍食物，用高跟鞋踩踏佳肴，踢飞盘子，将蛋糕当做雪球扔来扔去，镜面视觉效果一度呈现出万花筒的形态。

当她们爬上吊灯荡秋千之时，两人掉入河中，接着电影出现了恍如审判者的字幕：这是她们唯一的结束方式，有任何方式可以拯救这些恶毒的行为吗，玛丽们回答我们快淹死了，我们在呼救，因为我们完全堕落了，我们再也不想堕落了，于是审判者说，我们会给她们第二次机会，接下来会发生什么事情。

玛丽们穿着用废弃报纸做成的衣服将餐桌收拾干净。她们回到餐厅。把打破的碎片放在桌子上，把食物倒回盘子里，说着我们要善良，我们要勤奋，那么，一切都会干净而美丽。清理完成之后，她们躺在桌子中央，说着我们很高兴。玛丽二号让玛丽一号重复这句话，玛丽一号问我们是否在伪装。玛丽二号说我们不是，随即吊灯落在了她们身上，电影切换到战争镜头，上面出现电影声明：“献给那些精神生活一片混乱的人”。

这是无聊的、不被世界理解、和世界一起变坏的玛丽们所做的最后一件事情。她们果然没有克制自己的欲念，尽情享用着大厅里的一切，秉持着谁发现谁掌握谁进食的原则，与那些滥用霸权的人们不同的是，她们不加以遮掩，甚至破坏到底，娱乐到底。贪食症在现代社会被看作精神病征之一，在玛丽们疯狂不加节制进食的背后，反映的恰恰是精神世界的崩溃，她们的行径看似没有什么意义，甚至滑稽可笑，但各种过火行为映射出内心的虚无；面对现实世界的混沌，这些荒诞大概是她们消除不安的镇静剂。自电影起始，她们几次回归伊甸园，再下沉到人间，而在这一幕过后落进水里。

伊甸园和水域总是交叉出现，从Věra的天主教家庭背景出发，我们不妨把这几次伊甸园看作地狱抑或天堂的层级，把水域理解为灭世纪的洪水，经历一次次欲念“罪责”之后，被“上帝”问罪，因此玛丽们不断坠落，直至虚无主义的水域（内心的道德底层），她们才开始求饶和反思。这也暗合甚至反讽了捷克民族形象，“Pábitelé”式的言行举止，这种天真的、甚至是愚蠢的幻想似乎又是一种高超的生存技巧。正是这样一种生存姿态使得捷克民族得以在血雨腥风的历史变迁中生存下来。

因此，似乎很难去判定哪一种是好的，哪一种是坏的，没有永恒的真理，只有无所不在的悖论。

她们穿着废弃报纸拼接包裹的衣服回来打扫，正如玛丽们曾遇见的清洁工一样，与此前不同的是，如今她们沾满了标签，口号和他人的话语，不再是发誓所成为的自由的坏女人了，她们的愿望（欲念）只有好好工作，然后幸福。我们可以看到，大厅里狼藉的场景渐渐干净而整洁起来，但破碎的盘子仍然无法复原，掉在地上的食物再也没办法进食，脏污的窗帘依旧脏污，被战争破坏的家园亦复如是，Věra用物质构建的客观世界映射人们战后创伤的心灵还是那么空虚无措，像是用生命做出的一场达达主义实验，尽管玛丽们没有溺毙在道德的彼岸，吊灯还是击中了彼时凌驾于社会体制之上的她们，被世俗规范驯化的，最终也将为世俗规范所摧毁。玛丽们仅仅只代表女性吗？仅仅只代表个人吗？我看不尽然。

存于【菲斯克尼的嘲弄】公众号

在发动的齿轮与轰鸣的战火的画面重复交替之后，两个肢体像木偶一样的比基尼少女正坐在木制背景墙下，她们的动作伴随着木门开合的“咯吱”声——这正呼应了金发少女说的话：“我想要做一个处女/洋娃娃。”她们对话中的“panna”在捷克语中有歧义，既意味着处女，也意味着洋娃娃。（Cheryl Stephenson, 2018）黑发少女说：“世界上的一切都堕落了。”于是在令人眼花缭乱的滤镜快速转换下，属于堕落世界中的她们达成了要一起堕落的共识。她们在餐厅约会年老的男人，忽视餐厅礼仪、狼吞虎咽，最后一次次地把约会过的不同男人送上火车。她们在舞厅用更夸张的肢体行动与舞者“比赛”，在顾客头上吐着泡泡。黑发少女认为必须想点更好玩的事。金发少女褪去衣物用蝴蝶标本遮挡胸部和下体，引诱着男人，然而她却只想询问果酱的下落。她忽视着男人的求爱电话，在唱诗般的背景音乐下，两人烧着房间里垂落的纸条，像默剧演员一样，浮夸地在床上表演着吃。她问：“我不知道为什么会有人说爱，而不是用鸡蛋代替。”

然而，当少女们落到郊外时，再多的恶作剧也无法使得勤劳的园丁与自行车上的工人们注意到她们。金发少女说着：“我觉得我们会消失在稀薄的空气里。”于是她们回到房间里，（在剪辑师的帮助下）用剪刀剪碎身体。她们潜入无人的盛宴，恣意浪费与破坏一切。当吊灯上的她们被画面投入河里，在她们呼救的同时，伴随着生硬的打字机的声音，屏幕弹出了：“这是他们唯一的结束方式”，“有任何方式可以拯救这些恶毒的行为吗”。于是，不再“堕落”的女孩们呢喃着“如果我们听话，如果我们工作，我们会很高兴”，清扫了盛宴的“废墟”。吊灯朝她们的身体落下，画面复归于电影开端的战争影像。

电影的故事起始于少女们的对话“世界上的一切都堕落了”。面对如此强大的“虚无”，她们选择以一种共同变坏的方式来对抗虚无。她们的行为在某种程度上，映射出欧洲战后最为流行的哲学思潮——存在主义。这一思潮专注于研究人的境况、情感、责任与自由，被认为源于德国哲学家克尔凯郭尔的作品《畏惧与战栗》（1943）。第二次世界大战后，存在主义研究的中心便由法国存在主义学者让-保罗·萨特从德国转移到了法国。根据萨特存在主义的观点：世界是荒谬的，生活是痛苦的。当人们来到这个世界，面对外界的混乱与荒诞时，他们感到无助和拘束。在这个瞬息万变的世界里，似乎人类根本无法控制自己的命运。他们只能对自己和外界感到恶心与呕吐，却并不能改变这种痛苦的结局。

在影片中，少女们破坏社会礼仪、欺骗并且玩弄感情、不停地浪费与吞咽食物。在《存在主义就是一种人道主义》（2012）中，萨特认为人类有自己的权利，也就是说，人们可以用独立的意志做出绝对自由的决定和行动，并用这些来界定自己的本质。混乱、粗俗、冷漠，她们用自己的方式蔑视虚伪、挣脱规则、以实现所谓的对虚无的反抗。然而，一系列令人匪夷所思的恶作剧在她们的自由选择下，构成了当下的她们本身。正如《存在与虚无》（2014）一书中，萨特强调了拒绝所产生的虚无。当人们拒绝自己时，他不再拥有自己的感觉。也就是说，否定剥夺了人们的存在感。自我本质在女孩们拒绝外界的过程中被消解了，她们开始怀疑自己的存在，因此金发少女说道：“我想知道为什么园丁没有理会我们，至少他可以赶我们走的……你知道我害怕什么吗？他根本看不到我们。”

存在的焦虑引起一场更为盛大的狂欢，于是电影在一场无人的盛宴中达到高潮，她们的双手蹂躏珍馐、双脚在佳肴上起舞。然而否认虚无便是否认自己存在本身。

这种反抗容易让人想到弗洛伊德的俄狄浦斯情结。在对人类文明进行阐述的过程中，与存在主义的个体自由选择所不同的是，弗洛伊德从宏观角度出发，消解了个体，认为个体自主的人格不过是人类一般压抑的僵硬表现，而人格是漫长的历史过程的最终产物。史前冲动与行为记忆随着人类种群的繁衍萦绕在人类的文明之中。而俄狄浦斯情结正是人类文明的遗传基因之一。不满的儿子通过杀死创立秩序的父亲/暴君，却变为新一代的父亲/暴君。在《雏菊》中，两个少女出于对堕落社会不认同，选择通过否认的方式抛弃这样的社会。不过，一系列愈演愈烈的恶作剧显示，这些局外人，在对现有秩序的蔑视和拒绝的过程中，破坏了现有秩序，起先作为反抗主体的少女们对社会客体的否认，使得少女成为了她们一开始要反抗的客体，自己成为了自己原先反抗的理由，即“堕落”。

希蒂洛娃在评论这部影片时，曾给出过她的观点，她并不认同两个女孩的“极具美感”的破坏行为：“这是关于人类毁灭事物的能力，同时这能力的背面是创造力。”《雏菊》中的年轻女孩在决定变得和世界一样堕落，但她们犯下的“破坏性行为”时相当天真的、幼稚的。他们的说话和举止像木偶一样。（Jan Čulík, 2018）戏谑的过程反而反映出生活的严肃性。她们疯癫一般的行为为理性、道德的生活提供了一个反面例子。面对真实生活的枯燥、礼仪的繁杂、爱情的虚伪，雏菊们的评价是：这样糟糕的生活。电影预想了一个新的可能性——放纵虚无、无规则、无道德的可能性。然而在结尾，河中付出代价的两个少女求救着：“我们再也不想堕落了”，伴随着打字机冷漠又有力的声音，字幕升起“这是他们唯一的结束方式”，“有任何方式可以拯救这些恶毒的行为吗”，“我们会给他们第二次机会，接下来会发生什么事情”，于是她们听话地收拾残局，打扫宴会。不过，清扫完毕时：

黑发女孩：“这是一个游戏吗？”

金发女孩：“不是。”

黑发女孩露出难过的神情。

金发女孩：“我们很高兴。”

黑发女孩：“但这并不重要。”

摇摇欲坠的吊灯即将落在她们的身上，而故事到这就停了。不再堕落也无法弥补过去，把弥补当作一个新的游戏，便也不算新的结局。捷克意识形态部曾评价《雏菊》说：“隐喻式的语言和寓言为模糊的解释留下了空间。”在尝试阐释的过程中，少女们表现出固有的破坏本能，而战争则正是人类最高级的暴力形式。以此隐喻：恶作剧行为是战争意识在个体身上的微观征兆。显而易见的是，不论是影像中所展现出的恶作剧行为，还是这种出现在片头片尾中被隐喻的战争，它们并无弥补的可能，即“第二次机会”。

捷克的木偶手工艺发达，许多捷克电影人会将木偶戏剧元素融入电影。《雏菊》的主角和木偶剧院之间在电影的开场就已建立起了牢固的联系。幕布在一个粗糙的舞台上打开，两个人物坐在一个木制的背景下，没有完整的着装，只穿着比基尼。（Cheryl Stephenson, 2018）电影开场时，角色机械僵硬的肢体动作伴随着木门开合的“咯吱”声，这一行为模式配上金发少女的话：“我想做一个洋娃娃”，明显地表现出了她们的木偶身份，她们在公共场所（餐厅，舞厅）表演，在后台（化妆间）挑选衣裳、化妆。此外，电影开场时黑发少女给金发少女一个耳光，让其进入“现实”世界（舞台）。然而这种不可思议的行为与不协调的情节，正如注重观众反应的木偶戏剧一般，在审美体验上拉开了观众/主体与角色/客体之间的距离，由此不至于让观众因为厌恶少女们的行为而批判这部电影。“不真实”的处理，相当于过滤去了观众的情感代入，从而去除了观影过程中常见的主角认同。缺失了某种现存的标准（自身的真实世界），并且拉长了评价的过程使得观众无法联系、回忆自己的亲身经历，在这种陌生体验的过程中，只得凝神关注着客体的行为动作。这些对木偶和木偶戏的视觉暗示不仅为电影建立了一种美学，而且还建立了一个散漫的领域，在那里主角不仅为电影的观众表演，而且为电影中的观众表演。（Cheryl Stephenson, 2018）

电影的先锋不仅体现在角色的木偶化上。从整体结构来看，频繁的跳切打碎了故事的空间结构，整部电影变成了拼贴影像。在这里，时间好像超现实绘画中融化的时钟一样，消失了。只有当少女们用手去拨墙上的挂钟和背景中时不时的“滴答”声，才能确定时间的存在。与传统的叙事不同的是，破碎的时间与空间还原了梦境与幻想的非理性秩序结构，它重构了一个新的“现实”。在《世俗神话：电影的野性思维》中，伊芙特·皮洛认为：“电影思维求助于自由的思维和遗觉形象的重现，把图像性和非图像性的表现方式、动作性和情感性的表现方式结合在一起。不遵循那种形成抽象判断和掌握概念真值的思维法则，按照自己的扩散性体系创造出支配思想展现过程的法则。”影片场景中的抽象拼接形式，复现了混乱、原始的图像思维，创造了诗性语言。她与编辑们合作，专门创作复杂的拼贴画，专注于图案和个别镜头的意义之间隐藏的相互关系。（Jan Čulík, 2018）从影片细节来看，希蒂洛娃安置了植物、蝴蝶标本、墙壁上的联系方式涂鸦、门锁的万花筒式快速特写帧，揭示场景位置、连接转换下一场景、暗示人物心理。当她们在郊外（远离了观众的舞台空间）疑惑为什么没有人意识到她们的存在时，闪现着一系列快速的门锁镜头，这一镜头正暗示了少女在拒绝外界从而被世界拒绝的现况。

“尽管地下电影在不断努力着，但我们还不习惯速度、加速的节奏、突然的突变、跳跃剪辑和所有与特技摄影有关的一切。我们仍然缺乏光学技巧的训练。”（Claire Clouzot, 1968）结合了波普艺术的《雏菊》，极具先锋性与前卫性，这使得影片又“拼贴”上了波普艺术的内涵。大量复制的特写镜头、光学技巧下变换着的彩色滤镜，放大了时间转瞬即逝与享乐主义气息。而这正呼应了影片内容对现代社会中存在与虚无、破坏与文明的讨论。

《雏菊》Daisies，1966. 捷克斯洛伐克

导演：维拉·希蒂洛娃（Věra Chytilová，1929-2014，捷克电影导演）

现在，是时候来深入研究捷克斯洛伐克新浪潮（Czechoslovak New Wave）电影中的瑰宝了，这些先锋艺术与杨·涅梅茨（Jan Němec，1936-2016）、杨·史云梅耶（Jan Švankmager，1934）等本土导演紧密的联系在一起。在20世纪60年代捷克斯洛伐克短暂的政治解冻期间，许多流媒体平台都有专门针对这一运动的主题放映。这些电影体现了著名的布拉格电影学院（FAMU）的创新前卫精神。有一则不确信的轶事称，奥森·威尔斯（Orson Welles，1915-85，美国电影导演）曾说过，除了FAMU，没人能够教授导演专业。

没有哪部电影能像维拉·希蒂洛娃的电影万花筒一样，体现出这场运动大胆的实验精神，它通常是通过肢体行为来上演。两名年轻女子假扮成顺从的女学生，引诱男人带她们出去吃饭。随着她们随后的无政府主义式的滑稽表演、过度的暴饮暴食和破坏派对的行为，她们把社会上对于女性的狭隘观念建构称为一场闹剧。看这部电影，不仅要看两位主演（出自非专业演员）的出色表演，还要看埃斯特尔·克伦巴赫乔娃（Ester Krumbachová，1923-96，捷克编剧和服装设计师）的奇装异服和雅罗斯拉夫·库切拉（Jaroslav Kucera，1929-91，捷克电影摄影师）的创新摄影，包括跳跃剪辑、突然变化的色彩，以及对于实验动画的插入。

也许这是“新浪潮”中最无政府主义的一幕，维拉·希蒂洛娃的荒诞主义闹剧讲述了两个鲁莽的年轻女人的不幸遭遇。她们认为这个世界是被“宠坏了”的，于是开始了一系列的恶作剧，其中没有任何东西、食物、衣服、男人和战争受到重视。《雏菊绽放》是一部具有政治美学和冒险精神的电影，被广泛认为是女性主义电影的伟大作品之一。

《雏菊》（1966）剧照。

“我想成为拥有蛋糕最多的女孩。”——考特尼.洛夫 “人只有从思想中获得快感，才算成为真正的人。”——维拉·希蒂洛娃

三十年前，美国另类摇滚歌手考特尼·洛夫（Courtney Love，1964）的音乐将女性的最高欲望与抛掷头饰时的狂怒融合在一起；而在更早先的时候，维拉·希蒂洛娃（Věra Chytilová，1929-2014，捷克新浪潮导演）的《雏菊》（Daisies，1966）便已在银幕上塞满了极尽丰盈的糕点、馅饼和奶油泡芙—— 所有的食物都被她电影中的女主人公们疯狂地吞噬，一口接一口地撕咬。两个喜欢穿着相配的小猫高跟鞋将乏味生活变得混乱的年轻姑娘，一位名叫玛丽的金发女子头戴花冠，另一位黑发女子也叫玛丽（两个主角都叫玛丽，分别由伊特卡·采尔霍娃和伊万娜·卡尔班诺娃饰演）。女孩们在电影中面无表情地诉说：“这个世界上的一切都在变糟，”从故事的进程上展望，她们将会面临许多糟糕的事情，这意味着她们需要寻找到尽可能多的方式来放纵自我。

这位捷克电影人的处女作作为新浪潮（New Wave）的杰作以及极具女性魅力的感官盛宴，同时，也是一部罕见的既包含政治寓意又拥有戏谑感的女权主义电影。黑发女子在热气腾腾的牛奶浴中对金发女子说：“你没有在这里登记，不用工作，没有证据能证明你的存在。”在某种程度上，《雏菊》试图证明了她们具有某种力量，她们少女般的滑稽动作是可以破坏官僚主义和父权秩序的。

《雏菊》（1966）剧照。

开场的黑白字幕为影片奠定了基调，尽情地使用了库里肖夫效应（Kuleshov effect，指苏联导演库里肖夫发现的关于蒙太奇的一种理论 —— 由此看到了蒙太奇构成的可能性、合理性和心理基础，他认为造成电影情绪反应的并不是单个镜头的内容，而是几个画面之间的并列）来彰显出一种男性主义的基调和严肃感。屏幕上旋转的铁齿轮切换到了空中轰炸的纪录片镜头；与这种带有节奏感的军国主义风格截然不同的是，下一个场景便是片名“雏菊”，以及两个女孩如玩偶般地坐在野餐毯子上，她们倚靠在木栅栏上。女孩们穿着无肩带的比基尼，双腿伸直成僵硬的V字形，眼睛睁得大大的，仿佛在暗示电影即将上映。“我连这个都做不到，”扎着辫子的玛丽哀叹道，她吹响号角，让她的伙伴和观者都能有所注意。过了片刻她又说：“我们无能为力，”这句话也是贯穿全片的另一种重复，其强化了她们对自我缺乏能动性的虚无主义意识。

《雏菊》（1966）剧照。

尽管《雏菊》在整体观感上总是故意呈现出一副泰然自若的姿态，但两位女主角们非常乐于将礼仪及传统的女性美德从“神圣的货架上敲打”下来。“你在做什么？”当其中一位双膝并拢时，另一位玛丽问道。“我是一个处女，我看起来像个处女吧，不是吗？”她回答说。此刻，两人面对面，背景中响起了鼓声，当一个人拍打着另一个人，画面逐渐从黑白变成了花丛中的彩色场景。

《雏菊》的镜头不断地在田园风光、城市通道和公共公寓的装饰内饰之间来回穿梭，陶醉其中的恶作剧者们尽情狂欢，把布拉格及其周边的乡村变成了一个荒诞的游乐场—— 一路上哄骗无知的老男人来买单。在一个场景中看似毫无歉意地懒散，在下一个场景中却转变成了四处游荡的活力：玛丽们在玉米地、火车隧道和码头上游逛，把Punch和Judy夜总会的摊位变成了属于她们自己的裸露狂剧场。

《雏菊》（1966）剧照。

食物，才是女孩们的最终目标，而男性的认可或关于异性恋的前景则对她们毫无诱惑，她们有时会公然嘲讽男性的性魅力。影片进行到一半时，当一个坠入爱河的年轻男子在电话里喃喃低语着情话时，玛丽们正大口大口地吃着香肠，叉着腌黄瓜，并把香蕉从皮上扯下来直接塞进嘴里。随着歌剧音乐在背景中响起，她们热情地切割、吞咽象征性的食物，仿佛正在蚕食着电话另一头的男人。“现在我知道什么是爱了……”男子谄媚地说，而坐在一旁他所谓的爱人却回答道，“还要再来一块肉吗？“，并用叉子戳了戳她女性朋友的肚子。

《雏菊》摒弃了线性叙事和社会现实主义，颠覆了苏联时代电影制作的陈旧观念，就像它轻率地颠覆了一部关于傻笑少女的电影是不可能具有严肃性的观念一样。不管希蒂洛娃声称《雏菊》是一部“道德寓言”，这部电影在今天之所以还能如此引人入胜的部分原因是，它的无政府主义女士们几乎都侥幸逃脱了一切惩罚。“让我们准备一场宴会吧！”一个人对着另一个人再次说道，在影片的最高潮之时，她们偶然发现了酒店宴会厅里的奢华筵席。这也许是电影史上最精彩的一场食物大战，直到戏剧的结尾，没有一盏吊灯、窗帘或桌布能够幸免。“这有关系吗？”其中一人举起一只破碎的杯子问向另一个。“不，没关系，”对方一如既往地回答道。

她们将自己在表演上的乏味与在公共和私人领域中的缺乏实质内容等同起来，玛丽们把妇女和女孩曾经扮演的那些微不足道的角色用欣喜若狂的方式展现出来（从某种程度上说，这仍然是有限的展示）。她们在最后一幕肩并肩地宣布：“我们真的很开心！” 《雏菊》对过度放纵和不守规则的享乐进行了无尽的歌颂，人们铭记住它的原因与其说是这部电影曾经受到过捷克政府的严厉审查，倒不如说是它预见了当今女权主义话语中超女性化的声音。

欢迎关注我的微信公众号：ABAGo

Destruction and Reflection in Objectification: Feminist Allegory in Daisies/ Sedmirkrásky [1] and The Girls/ Flickorna [2]In the male-dominated film industry, it is rare to see films made from the perspective of women. Thornburg complains that traditionally most media have provided limited role models for women and that most films objectify women and define them in terms of their relationship to men.[3] With the onset of second-wave feminism in the early 1960s in the west, more women got involved in the film industry as filmmakers and more films were produced from a feminist point of view. Examples of such films include Daisies and The Girls, which are both directed by and use women as protagonists. These films successfully broke down stereotypical portrayals of women in film and have presented women’s reflection on their condition under patriarchal society. Daisies is directed by Věra Chytilová, a preeminent member of the Czech New Wave film movement. This film can be interpreted in a number of ways and can also be considered as a feminist allegory which reconstructs the doll metaphor as the celebration of the female recalcitrance rather than the apparent condemnation of its heroines.[4] The Girls, which is more recognisable of its director - Mai Zetterling’s political commitment, inserts an ancient Greek comedy - Lysistrata as a feminist allegory to reveal the heroines’ reflection on their own lives. Focusing on the central notion in feminism - objectification, this study will explore the feminist values presented to the viewer in Daisies and The Girls. This will be achieved by carefully comparing and analysing filmic elements and techniques used in both of these films. Before we begin to analyse their respective film works, it is valuable to look at these female filmmakers’ authorship approaches first. Although Chytilová and Zetterling are both from Europe, they came from opposing parts of Europe divided by the so called “Iron Curtain” for much of the 20th century, leading to distinct cultural differences in their work. As one of the most innovative filmmakers in 1960s, Chytilová’s work is characterised by surrealism, grotesque satire and absurdism. She is very creative in her methods through which she utilises avant-garde and experimental techniques to establish her own unique film style. For a brief period the work she produced was critical of communism, due to the de-Stalinization policy of the Czech government in the early 1960s, a short-lived period of artistic freedom in the country. Her early career as a fashion model may also have influenced Daisies. Zetterling is perhaps better known in the west for her acting than for her directing, yet she has created a new image of women in film which has embodied the potential of filmmaking by women[5]. Her filmmaking style is deeply influenced by the Swedish Ingmar Bergman, who has achieved worldwide notoriety as a director. He has directed several films and TV series that focus on women and marriage such as Persona[6] and Scenes from a Marriage/Scener ur ett äktenskap [7] which are in the same vein as The Girls. Some of the actors from The Girls also star in some Bergman’s other films. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the influence of Bergman when analysing The Girls by Zetterling.Differences in film elements and techniques set apart the contrasting styles of Daisies and The Girls. When analysing the respective films’ cinematography, it is apparent that the change of colour in Daisies and The Girls sets essential differences in their film’s tone. The differences are not just confined to the fact that Daisies is cine-colour and The Girls is in black and white. Daisies has manifest colour change from filters change and colour effect. The heavy use of colour effect in this film does not follow any specific rules, setting a tone that resembles a disordered game. Hames remarks that Daisies does not take itself seriously as most experimental films do.[8] This is contrast to The Girls, which follows a clear rule of the change of colour contrast. To some extent, The Girls is a combination of acting, reality, imagination and reminiscence. However, it is notable that only the reality and acting on the timeline are presented in a normal contrast, whereas imagination and flashback are both in high black and white contrast. This indicates a strong tendency of gender opposition. A clear and firm tone has been stated from the manifest colour change.

Fig. 1 The dynamic colour effect of rail in Daisies.

As evidenced by the soundtrack differences in Daisies and The Girls, the feminist allegory is told in a subtle way and a direct way respectively in each film. Much like its visual style, Daisies’ soundtrack is an experimental mixture of dialogue, sound effects and music. The soundtrack is more independent in Daisies, it includes pop music and mechanical sounds such as the tik tok of a clock and creaking sounds. The creative use of contrapuntal sound effectively defines the attributes of the two heroines from the opening scene of Daisies: the movement of the two Maries’ bodies makes a mechanical sound. From the beginning of the film Chytilová has made it clear that two heroines are puppet-like, as evidenced from their stiff and unnatural movements. In contrast, the sound source used in The Girls is diegetic for the most part. The movie uses dialogue directly copied from the play Lysistrata for dramatic effect. The memories and imagination aroused by the theatre that three heroines perform in are juxtaposed with lines from Lysistrata, to show their understanding of the drama and reflection of their real lives. The psychological description of an old couple who Liz has treated like friends is shown as monologues which reveal the status quo of women under the male gaze. Compared to Daisies, the dialogue in The Girls is more revealing in terms of its political overtones. This is in contrast to the dialogue of Daisies, which is far more banal and mundane, therefore its subtext as a feminist allegory is presented in a far more subtle way. Another element that differentiates the style of Daisies and The Girls is the performance style. The performance in Daisies is mostly acted out by the two women, and they are both amateur actors. Their performance style is unique and unnatural, and is in keeping with the style of the film. Their body language and speech are also stilted, and these traits combined with their negative and selfish behaviour are superficially attractive. [9] This performance style helps to establish the image of the girls as being doll like, Hames argues that they ‘act out a puppet-like spectacle.’[10] In The Girls, the acting performances are more natural and professional. The characters’ behaviour noticeably diverges under different conditions. In the real world and in memory sequences, the heroines are obedient and weak. However in the scenes from the theatre and from their imagination, they are radical and strong. These inconsistencies in their behaviour show their strong desire to have these traits in the real world. For instance, Liz gives three speeches which are after the show, in the real world in front of the journalists and in her imagination. Her confidence level varies in each of her speeches, at the start of her after-show speech she is reasonably self-assured, but in her real world speech she is irresolute, lastly in her imagination she is fearless and intrepid, reflecting her ‘desire for power’.[11]

Fig.2 Liz’s three speeches in The Girls: after the play, in front of the journalists and in her fantasy.

To some extent, Daisies is about the consequences of poor decision making whereas The Girls is a reflection on the feminist allegory. Daisies and The Girls both criticise consumerism with food but in differing ways. In The Girls, Gunila has an unpleasant flashback where she goes shopping and buys a cake. She is treated disrespectfully by a male clerk in shop and then children start to chase her, leaving her feeling helpless. She drops the cake she bought and runs away. Gunila does not push back against the clerk’s behaviour and fears the kids even as a mother of four children herself. In Daisies, the two girls eat, cut and spoil food, and burn things with joy. There behaviours show the girls’ liberation from consumerism using hyperbolic imagery. Lim describes them as being ‘awaken to revolt’[12]against the worn out cliche that women are powerless and flimsy.The relationship between the heroines and men in these two films are portrayed using different techniques. In Daisies, the two Maries belong to no-one, and they enjoy the game of manipulating men because of their inability to love. In other words, they also belong to everyone. They are portrayed as both consumers and destroyers of food, but in reality they represent the typical woman who has been objectified to the point where they are no different to a product that is consumed in the patriarchal society. Chytilová further highlights this from other details in the film such as when the two Maries soak themselves in the milk bath and when they get into the food elevator. In Daisies, the two Maries use destruction to justify their existence. Nobody cares them so they decide to destroy. The Girls is for the most part about the struggle of three heroines against the men in their lives. They are deeply bothered by the reality that people are indifferent towards them even though they are successful actresses. The girls in Daisies parallel the mistresses of Liz’s husband in her fantasy scene in The Girls. Liz’s husband takes his mistresses out from his case and undresses them on the bed as though they are dolls, whilst persuading Liz to sacrifice her career to support him. Thornburg points out that Liz’s husband wants to objectify Liz in the same manner as his mistresses: to achieve an ‘expansion of his own ego’.[13]Clouzot states that the dominant trait of Daisies is its objective vision[14], which explains why Chytilová and Zetterling present the two Maries and the mistresses of Liz’s husband in a similar manner.

Fig. 3 Analogous characters in The Girls and Daisies: The mistresses of Liz’s husband and the two Maries are all like dolls.

The difference can also be seen from different character settings. In The Girls, the heroines’ conflict with the men in their lives is partly due to their successful jobs. However, in Daisies, the two girls never work but exist under an ‘economical parasitism’ [15]. The three heroines in The Girls are middle-class white women who can be related to by the audience from their different conditions: Mariamne is a mistress, Liz has a cheating husband and Gunila is a mother who has a boring and irresponsible husband. In Daisies, the young and beautiful Maries are an extreme representation of every woman who has been objectified in their life. Daisies and The Girls both operate within a double world structure but it presented to the viewer in different ways. The two worlds in Daisies, which are the realistic orderly world and the world of the two Maries’ abnormal behaviours, exist independently. The majority of Daisies is dominated by the second world. There are several parts of the film in which the two Maries encounter the real world. For example, in the nightclub scene, a female dancer becomes frozen with surprise upon viewing the two Maries’ farcical behaviour. One can assume that her reaction shows how she has become enlightened by the two Maries’ defiance against docility. In the countryside scene, the two Maries are passed by a group of workers who totally ignore them, which sparks Maries’ self-criticism about their decision to engage in this behaviour. Moreover, the dual protagonists are symbolic of the double world. The repeated use of symmetrical composition from the beginning correlates with the concept of double world. Daisies starts with the dual protagonists sitting on the ground and ends with them lying on the table after their punishment. Their rebellion is destined to fail because they are still stuck in the cage of patriarchal society. At the end of the film, their behaviour reverts to that of the stereotypical female, happy to be subservient in society. Their destruction can be interpreted as Chytilová’s criticism on objectifying women.

Fig. 4 The double world in Daisies: the female dancer is closely awakened by the two Maries’ unruly behaviour which shows an intrusion of th

In The Girls, the double world becomes mixed up together as the three heroines’ theatre acting, real life and fantasy combine. The nightclub scene in The Girls is a fantasy in which Liz leads the women to use their initiative to put themselves under the male gaze by taking off their clothes in front of male onlookers. Only in the imaginary scenes do the women rebel bravely, which is similar to the behaviour of the girls in Daisies. Apart from this, the heroines are passive and oppressed in the real world. Their fantasies are more like daydreams, compared to the practical revolt that occurs in Daisies. The Girls ends in an ambiguous manner. Liz’s decision to get divorced is not shown explicitly but is replaced by the imagery of distorted figures dancing in the mirror, which may indicate an acknowledgement by Zitterling that the challenges faced by women in the real world are still difficult to conquer. As Zitterling admits that ‘a woman is emotionally formed by men and never quite breaks free from them, even if she would like to.’[16]

Fig. 5 The colour contrast change in the last scene of The Girls when Liz declares she is getting a divorce, which calls into question wheth

Thanks to the efforts of generations of feminists, women have made great progress in the pursuit of gender equality in the west. However, today’s world is still dominated by men, and women in developing countries are still facing similar problems to what were experienced by women in the developed world in the 1960s. Winkler describes the three main actresses in The Girls as having a real ‘sense of frustration with balancing or combining work and family’ in 1995[17]. Women in the movie industry are still facing these same problems today. Chytilová has become renowned for her talent, skills and unique style. However, Zetterling cannot avoid being overshadowed by the more acclaimed Bergman as a director. Therefore, films like Daisies and The Girls are still hugely relevant as feminist allegories, not only because they show how women have awakened to reflect on their condition, but also to act as a benchmark when it comes to the representation of women in film today. Daisies and The Girls both have distinctive styles in presenting colours, sound and performance on screen. Chytilová tells the story of how women can be destroyed by objectification through an experimental comedy. Zetterling contrasts the reality and the political appeal of women who have become inspired by the play Lysistrata. They both reflect on the manner in which women have become objectified and go on to explore the real world demands of women. Although the five heroines in two films all fail in practicing, the double world in Daisies already interacts with each other and the three actresses in The Girls are awaken on the ideological level. These proclaimed feminist films will always inspire people to reflect and behave just as the female filmmakers had wished. Winkler highlights that Liz’s speech after her performance likely serves as Zetterling’s own views in regard to her film[18]. These films shot from the woman’s perspective in 1960s deserve more notoriety as they are invaluable in showing the potential of women as independent human beings. As Winkler argues that ‘in spite of Bergman’s influence, The Girls is Zetterling’s own.’[19]

Filmography

Bergman, Ingmar, Persona, 1966. Film. Swe: AB Svensk Filmindustri

Bergman, Ingmar, Scene from a Marriage/ Scener ur ett äktenskap, 1973. TV series. Swe: Sveriges Radio

Chytilová, Věra, Daisies/Sedmirkrásky. 1966. Film.

Zetterling, Mai. The Girls/Flickorna. 1968. Film. Swe: Sandrew Film & Teater

Bibliography

Anděl, Jaroslav, Alexandr Hackenschmied (Prague: Torst, 2000)Clouzot, Claire, ‘Daisies by Věra Chytilová’ Film Quartly, Vol.21, No.3, 1968, pp. 35-37.

Hames, Peter, Czech and Slovak Cinema: Theme and Tradition (Traditions in World Cinema) (Edinburgh University Press, 2010)

Lim, Bliss Cua, ‘Dolls in Fragments: Daisies as Feminist Allegory’ Camera Obscura, Vol.16, No.2, 2001, pp. 1-77.

Sloan, Jane, ‘Making the Scene Together: Mai Zetterling’s Flikorna/The Girls(1968) and Aristophanes’s Lysistrata’, Quarterly Review of Film and Video, Vol.25, No.2, 2008, pp. 97-106

Thornburg, Linda, ‘Mai Zetterling: The Creation of a New Mythology’ Journal of the University Film Association, Vol. 26, No. 1/2, 1974, pp. 13-15.

Winkler, Martin M, Classical Literature on Screen: Affinities of Imagination (Cambridge Press, 2017)

[1] Chytilová, Věra, Daisies/Sedmirkrásky. 1966. Film. [2] Zetterling, Mai. The Girls/Flickorna. 1968. Film. Swe: Sandrew Film & Teater [3] Thornburg, Linda, ‘Mai Zetterling: The Creation of a New Mythology’ Journal of the University Film Association, Vol. 26, No. 1/2, 1974, p. 13. [4] Lim, Bliss Cua, ‘Dolls in Fragments: Daisies as Feminist Allegory’ Camera Obscura, Vol.16, No.2, 2001, p. 38. [5] Thornburg, ‘Mai Zetterling: The Creation of a New Mythology’, p. 13. [6] Bergman, Ingmar, Persona, 1966. Film. Swe: AB Svensk Filmindustri [7] Bergman, Ingmar, Scene from a Marriage/ Scener ur ett äktenskap, 1973. TV series. Swe: Sveriges Radio [8] Hames, Peter, Czech and Slovak Cinema: Theme and Tradition (Traditions in World Cinema) (Edinburgh University Press, 2010), p. 152. [9] Anděl, Jaroslav, Alexandr Hackenschmied (Prague: Torst, 2000), p. 8. [10] Hames, Czech and Slovak Cinema: Theme and Tradition (Traditions in World Cinema), p. 154. [11] Sloan, Jane, ‘Making the Scene Together: Mai Zetterling’s Flikorna/The Girls(1968) and Aristophanes’s Lysistrata’, Quarterly Review of Film and Video, 25:2, 2008, p. 102. [12] Lim, Bliss Cua, ‘Dolls in Fragments: Daisies as Feminist Allegory’, p. 60. [13] Thornburg, ‘Mai Zetterling: The Creation of a New Mythology’, p. 15. [14] Clouzot, Claire, ‘Daisies by Věra Chytilová’ Film Quartly, Vol.21, No.3, 1968, p. 35. [15] Lim, Bliss Cua, ‘Dolls in Fragments: Daisies as Feminist Allegory’, p. 57. [16] Thornburg, quoted in Rosen, Marjorie, ‘Women, Their films and Their Festival’ Saturday Review (ed) ‘Mai Zetterling: The Creation of a New Mythology’, p. 15. [17] Winkler, Martin M, Classical Literature on Screen:Affinities of Imagination ( Cambridge Press, 2017), p.149. [18] Ibid. p.144. [19] Ibid. p.148.