曼哈顿

1.比安妮霍尔更好看.

2.看片头就觉得把午夜巴黎秒了,海报那个镜头出现时,伍迪的画外音,真美啊,我永远看不够啊.

对巴黎那是虚情假意,对纽约才是真爱.

3.这片和克莱默同年,梅姑演的两个角色都是抛掉男人出走的独立女性,一个为事业一个为搞拉.但她自己的婚姻维持了30多年.

演她女友那演员貌似长得有点像桑塔格?还是我先入为主了.

年轻时候演戏还没有现在那举手投足的"梅利尔腔",所以看上去很....清新....更喜欢那个时候的她,虽然鹅蛋脸确实有够突兀.

彼时看外形,就是cate blanchet型的演员吧,适合走青衣路线当不了花旦,看不到如今的九五至尊范.

4.花旦当然是戴安,初出场一身nora ephron式的小洋装,有点做作的拿腔拿调,但一颦一笑全是重型炮弹,杀伤力强的狠.

戴安到底算不算演技派真不好说,但她最经典的形象能换谁来演呢,美人就julie christie,悍妇就菲唐娜威,傻大姐就歌帝韩,索非亚罗兰负责大胸...

平胸女高知已经有多少年没有出现在伍迪片里了?当代的女演员,gweneth paltrow勉强可以装下,好像没有上过伍迪戏吧.最近的rebecca hall气质近,又太漂亮了,ellen page?还太年轻吧.

17年后,梅利尔和戴安再度同台,marvin's room里,梅姑名字当然排第1,第2位是当时还没演铁达尼的新晋串红小生,第3位才是戴安.

最后提名的是戴安.

和梅丽尔同台还能抢走提名的,印象里就这一个?

我甚至想,当1979年已经有了曼哈顿里的戴安基顿,2008年还在拍<革命之路>?是历史倒退还是反讽?

5.知识分子最让人厌的就是掉书袋,那种普天之大舍我其谁的腔调,"老子很重要很重要".

唯有自嘲才能化解,唯有自我刻薄,才能化酸臭为喜感化腐朽为谐趣,这就是伍迪的无敌杀手锏...

"你别吃那么多安定,你会得癌!""什么癌?""恩....腹腔癌吧."

如果每天听这样的笑话,和知识分子恋爱也不错嘛.

6.配乐啊配乐!格什温啊!cole porter啊!

大半夜和心仪女子在纽约无人街头遛狗,背景音乐是someone to watch over me...

这就是知识分子的浪漫.

这好像也是我看过的所有伍迪片里最浪漫的一刻.

30多年后同样的桥段出现在儿童电视剧里,

那是傻男孩finn和犹太女孩rachel,这部剧,叫做glee...

所有嫌弃glee的人们啊,你们错过了多少你们知道吗!

7.另一个惊恐的事实是,我发现戴安当年的声音十分象....马脸!

每个人都在对自己的行为辩护，为自己的行为找一个合理的借口。然后让自己相信自己的借口，之后再去说服别人相信自己的借口。
甚至有时，自己都深信了这个借口。并为此借口而行动。但这个借口是极其不理性的。甚至只是自己安慰自己的一个借口。

最开始Woody不想与年轻女孩在一起，甚至是找借口不与她做爱。
当他与Diane相遇后，与年轻女孩分手，借口是她年龄太小，以后的生活会发生很大改变。甚至连他自己都相信他们最终不会走到一起。

当Diane与他分手后，他情绪低落，安慰自己说：“没准和那个十七岁少女会有很好的结果。”直至他自己都相信这样的结果后，他去那个女孩的住处找那个女孩。认为他们真的会很好的在一起。所有这一切的起因只是因为Diane离开他之后他安慰自己心情的一个借口。而这个借口是不理性的，轻率的。甚至是不负责任的。

生活中，人们总是这样，先为自己的行为找一个借口，然后相信这个借口，再为这个借口而行动。在这个借口面前，一切不负责任，不理性，不道德，不人性的东西都因为这个借口而变得合理起来了。

人们总是为一切行为找借口，并试图相信这个借口是真的。

电影儿一开始，一组城市的空镜慢慢展现在我们面前，同事佐以一个絮絮叨叨的声音在犹豫如何开始这个故事。镜头由凌乱的日景切换成一组烟花绽放在城市的上空。冷漠，浮躁，嘈杂，阴郁，在一组关于这座城市的描述词汇之中，作者最终选择了浪漫——这也是由镜头最终落在那组夜晚的烟花上决定的，而且，画外音从一组不断自我否定的叙述中渐渐嵌入了导演的视角和观点：“浪漫，哦，我喜欢这个开头。”

在伍迪·艾伦的镜头里，曼哈顿被描述成为一个冷漠而拥挤的城市，每个镜头都给人逼仄的感觉，城市的小酒馆里，几个朋友喝酒，画框里满满当当的放着几个主要角色，话题并不投机，言语里充满了隐藏的对抗。

导演似乎想用这种逼仄的镜头语言传达给我们：在一座拥挤的城市里面，每个人的相遇，乃至碰撞是尴尬而无奈的。善于挖掘戏剧元素的伍迪·艾伦似乎一下子就抓住了“城市”最明显的特质。

婚姻破裂，因为老婆变成了同性恋，朋友不理解，重新认识的女人都是充满自我保护意识的“刺猬”，电视台的工作因为自己的一时冲动丢掉了——这是一个标准的都市人的形象。梅丽尔·斯特利普的同性恋情节很快就能让我们想到《六人行》中的ROSS，也许是后者的抄袭，但我认为更多的，是一个开放得不能再开放的国家的通病。

倒霉，似乎是伍迪·艾伦影片永远的主题，主人公伊萨克42岁，拥有没完没了的麻烦和永远解不开的心结，倒霉的运气让这个老男孩总是不停的抱怨自己的生活，遇到的人，和这座城市的不合理，言语之中投射出都市人的尴尬与可笑。

在与那个一身是刺的女人熟识之后，伊萨克意识到，两个人对这座城市有着惊人相似的印象：混乱，不可理喻。

“大楼要拆了，我曾经号召过人们抵抗这件事，躺在大楼下面试图阻止他们拆掉它，结果一个警察从我的手上踩过去，唉，这城市疯了！”

曼哈顿大都市中的孤独个体，其中灌注的是对整个城市，整个城市的文化的热爱，甚至是同生共死的感情。无论是事业上的失败，生活中的孤独，都是伍迪热爱这个城市的原因。他爱的不只是曼哈顿的快乐幸福，也同样热爱这个城市中的沮丧颓唐。

影片中最能体现城市感的人物要算那个从外地（实在想不起来哪个城市了）的女人了。出场的时候长篇大论，对这个城市的艺术，文化，以及所有的事务不屑于故，并且一再的重申自己是刚刚到达这里的。言语之中充满了紧张与自我保护意识。这也许就是造成都市冷漠的最终原因，每个人都小心翼翼的保护着自己，生怕被别人认为浅薄和没有独立见解，这种抬杠式的对话方式造成了人与人之间沟通的困难，所以，伊萨克在第一次见到这个女人之后的那一段絮絮叨叨的抱怨也就很容易理解了。

然而影片从一开始就告诉我们，这是一个关于浪漫的故事，那么爱情应该是影片最主要的情节。在作者眼中，这座城市虽然冰冷，虽然逼仄，但还是有让他热爱的东西，也许正是因为城市的冷漠才让爱情在一片冷色中显得尤为突出。

有意思的是，两位爱情主人公对彼此的了解，也正是我们通过影片对于曼哈顿的了解，伊萨克表面上絮絮叨叨，充满对这个城市和自己不行遭遇的抱怨，然而这个外来女人慢慢的了解到，原来这是个内心情感丰富，并且非常善良的人，而伊萨克对女人的了解，也是从一开始的一百个看不上，到后来渐渐剥去伪装之后的热爱。由此，一个通过人物展现出来的城市情感慢慢显露在我们面前，对于一座城市的感情，就是对一个情人的感情，里面掺杂了由厌恶到了解，到喜爱，进而惊喜，最终变成习惯的各种感觉。

片中还有一个比较有意思的人物，就是那个17岁的女孩玛丽，如果用符号学的角度来分析的话，这个女孩象征着纯洁和执着。影片中伊萨克对这个女孩的态度非常有意思，始终在抱怨两个人的年龄差距太大，并且不厌其烦的告诉玛丽：“你的人生还没有开始，将来你会遇到比我好上千倍的男人。”在遇到耶尔（那个外来女人）之后，这种感觉更加强烈，但是说辞也随着伊萨克对耶尔的感情逐渐升温而慢慢变得虚伪起来。就在最终耶尔离他而去之后，伊萨克感到自己非常孤独，不能让自己的感情生活没着没落，于是重新对17岁的玛丽展开爱情攻势。在影片的最后，那些说辞显然非常的虚伪，并且前后言行不一，但这却让玛丽感动——也许城市中还存在着纯洁？这个结尾太棒了！把问题留给观众去想。

最有还有一点补充，就是伍迪·艾伦式的幽默。幽默元素在他的电影中无处不在，然而每个元素都不是随兴的安插，都是有非常严谨的内涵。举两个例子：

一是伊萨克在与耶尔表达感情之后，有一段MV式的表现爱情的段落，两个人在湖上划船，湖光山色，画面烂漫得无以复加，伊萨克无意间把手伸进湖水里，脸上是一副陶醉的表情，但是慢着！手里抓到了什么？再次把手拿上来的时候是一手的泥。这个桥段将整个烂漫气氛变得尴尬可笑。导演似乎想通过这个小动作来预示，这两个人的爱情不会一帆风顺——不浪费任何一个可以为主题服务的视觉元素，实在是太高明了。

还有一个段落，同样是没有对白。伊萨克带着儿子逛街，在橱窗前儿子看上一条巨大的帆船模型，伊萨克却建议儿子买那个相对小一点的，镜头是从店里面拍的，两个人经过一番无声的争执之后，失去耐心的父亲打了儿子的脑袋一下，儿子进入店中，而伊萨克却开始掏兜数钱——都市人的尴尬与无奈被表现得淋漓尽致。

          “He adored New York City.” (Manhattan)Of course. Why else would Woody Allen title his film Manhattan? He makes it clear from the very beginning that this film is dedicated to the city. Seeing Midtown in black and white unfolding to the rhythm of “Rhapsody in Blue”, the audience romanticizes the city together with Allen and eagerly awaits what he has to say about the city. And then through the hustle bustle of daily street scenes of Manhattan, we hear it, “a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture”(Manhattan).
          Before we proceed, we shall ask ourselves, what is the “contemporary culture” that Allen is referring to? The film was released in 1979 and the “Manhattan” he refers to is the one in the 70s. New York City in the 1970s was “dirty, dangerous and destitute”(Tannenbaum). Crimes were rampant around the city and Times Square was filled with hookers and drug dealers. The economic chaos and political upheaval brought by the war and Watergate rendered the city powerless in the face of crisis. It is not surprising that Allen was heartbroken, seeing his beloved city turning into a nest of crimes and drugs. While Manhattan is not Taxi Driver, which exposes the crimes of New York unreservedly and praises actions against them, that doesn’t mean Allen shies away from all the trouble the city and the society is in. He turns it, instead, into a celebration of New York and the people living in it. Allen, born in Brooklyn, has spent his entire life living in the city, knowing all the bits and pieces about it. Certainly it is far from perfection, but neither is anything else. Nonetheless Allen knows that New York is a great city, and the reason is written all over Manhattan, from the stunning 59th Street Bridge at dawn to the enchanting and dark Planetarium in the American Museum of Natural History.
          The film centers on four people living in Manhattan, Isaac (played by Allen himself), Mary, Yale and Tracy. These characters embody the spirit of the city. All of them are highly educated and possess rich cultural knowledge. Cultural debates take place among them throughout the film. The most heated debate happens when Isaac meets Mary at an art fair, where Mary criticizes the photography Isaac likes as derivative and witless and praises the steel cube Isaac dislikes as textual and “has a marvelous kind of negative capability”, which is clearly a reference to John Keats. These polished critiques of art clearly reflects their knowledge and insight in art. Thanks to the city’s inexhaustible amount of cultural institutions, numerous scenes in the film take place in museums, art galleries and special art exhibits, which allows these debates to happen. These characters themselves also work in television, book editing and universities. They are supposed to represent the intellect of this city that is famous for its huge international media conglomerates, Broadway and several of the greatest museums in the world, among others. Allen himself obviously takes pride in the status of New York as one of world’s greatest cultural capitals. When Mary later says that she is from Philadelphia, believes in God and does not want to have this conversation, Isaac is confused by what Mary means by that. But we know for sure that Allen himself isn’t. From these characters, we can see how the status of New York as a cultural capital affects the way they live and shape them as who they are.
          However, apart from their glamorous appearance and fanciful cultural glossary, what is truly intriguing about those characters is the problems they each have, just as in the case of New York City. A lot of their problems have to do with their relationships and emotions. For Isaac, the fact that he is involved with a teenage girl, Tracy, bothers him greatly. Upon knowing that Tracy goes to a high school, Mary wittingly remarks that “somewhere Nabakov is smiling”, referring to the devastating relationship between Lolita and Humbert in the novel Lolita. If anything, the feelings Humbert has for Lolita, a girl much younger than his age, ruins his life almost completely. After Lolita disappears all of a sudden one day, Humbert goes on a frantic search for her that lasts years. When he finally finds her at the end, he goes on a killing spree of her abductor that ends in a disaster. Though not nearly the case of Lolita, the relationship between Isaac and Tracy is equally troublesome because of the age gap. The difference here is that Isaac keeps things under control because he knows that he might wind up in a similar situation as Humbert if he lets things go freewheeling. But at the end, feelings still get the upper hand. Yet the struggle of Isaac is the battle between his ideal and his morality. The same thing can be said about Mary, who is involved in an extra-marital relationship with Yale. She constantly repeats that she is from Philadelphia and her parents are married for 43 years and “nobody cheats at all”. This indicates her repulsion towards the nature of her relationship with Yale because she knows that “this is going nowhere” and she’s merely wasting her time. She knows that she is “young, highly intelligent and got everything going for [her]” yet she is “wasting herself on a married man”. This happens to the best of us. Regardless of how much knowledge one has or how well-to-do one is, it seems inevitable that we at some point struggle to find the right places for ourselves. This is especially true for New Yorkers in the 1970s who all of a sudden find themselves in the middle of an ailing city. Allen’s film, clearly dedicated to this city and all the problems it has, rings a bell among audiences.
          Is there anyway that these problems can be solved? Allen certainly explores some of the possibilities in this film. He has an earnest appreciation for great minds, which he constantly shows in various films. Notably, Interior is written in the style of Ingmar Bergman and Stardust Memories is a remake of Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2. There are also several references to Bergman and Fellini in Manhattan itself, showing their tremendous influence on Woody Allen. When Mary includes Ingmar Bergman in her “Academy of the Overrated”, Isaac rebuts with “Bergman? Bergman is the only genius in cinema today.” Later on, after meeting Mary’s friends at MoMA, Isaac remarks that “it’s an interesting group of people, your friends. It’s like the cast of a Fellini movie”. Apart from the apparent influence, is Allen suggesting that we should rely on them to solve our own problems? Mary doubts so, harshly criticizing that “it is the dignifying of one's own psychological and sexual hangups by attaching them to these grandiose philosophical issues”. It suggests that appreciation for the great minds is merely a hypocritical dignification of one’s own problems, but not the solution to them. In the case of Manhattan, we can see that the abundance of culture institutions and marvelous exhibits still cannot save Times Square from becoming the haven for prostitutes. Maybe art merely provides us a way to recognize or discern the problems, but fails to actually prevent them from happening.
       Allen then goes on to explore other possibilities, again through Mary’s voice. At this point we can see that while Isaac clearly represents Allen himself, Mary can be considered the “other” in his mind that constantly doubts the “self” and proposes alternative ideas. In this case, in an intimate setting at the planetarium, their heads appear as silhouettes in front of a huge bright image of Saturn. The dark images of heads seem to suggest the insignificance of their appearance at this point and the importance of their ideas instead. Mary suddenly asks Isaac fondly how many satellites of Saturn he knows, and Isaac frankly admits that he doesn’t know any. As Mary boasts that she “got a million facts on [her] fingertips”, Isaac defends himself calmly with “nothing worth knowing can be understood with the mind. Everything really valuable has to enter you through a different opening”. “Where would we be without rational thought?”, asks Mary in disbelief, to which Isaac quickly responds with “You rely too much on your brain. And the brain is the most overrated organ.” What we have here is a debate between rationality and emotionality, which has certain connections with the previous discussion regarding the great minds but is one step further. Mary, critical of the importance of great minds, relies on her own instead and emphasizes on rational thought, while Isaac suggests that rational thought cannot get us anywhere. The “different opening” Isaac talks about here must be emotions, unrelated to mind and rationality, yet makes up a huge part of our lives. Isaac, thus, may appreciate the great minds precisely for their emotional capabilities, the way they stir up feelings inside us that we might not have before. But aren’t feelings the cause of all the problems in the film to begin with? Mary describes her extra-marital relationship with Yale as “a no-win situation” and the only thing that keeps them from getting out of that dreadful situation is their feelings for each other. However, when Yale rationalizes everything and finally decides to break up with her, he becomes “depressed and confused”. It seems that rational thought cannot really help them out here, and feelings only make it worse. It has come a full circle since we started.
          Isn’t it just like New York City in the 1970s? As the fiscal crisis loomed over the city, there was really little people could do. The police couldn’t do anything about the soaring crime rates since they needed money and thus were corrupted themselves. Anyone fond of rebuilding the city’s ailing infrastructure couldn’t change the situation because people have lost their faith and started leaving, which meant that bricks and broken walls of those demolished buildings in the Bronx just lay there without redevelopment. Even the federal government refused the city’s grant for bailout. Any form of rationality wouldn’t work because nobody had the strength to take actions anymore. Emotions didn’t help either as everyone was left in a hopeless and frustrated state. So what was it, as Allen may ask, that could change the fate of the city and the Isaacs and Marys living in it?
          In 1977, Ed Koch was elected the new mayor and he might have an answer to this. He did a marvelous job pulling the city out of its nadir and the most important factor for his success might be the active restoration of hope. At one of his most iconic attempts, he spent hours riding subways and asking passengers “How am I doing?”. In order to restore hope, he used his limited funds to refurbish city streets and subways. He also made a considerable effort clearing the city’s iconic parks such as Washington Square Park and Central Park from drug dealers and broken glasses. Though not the most financially profitable conducts, these acts essentially changed people’s attitude toward the city. People once again started having hopes for the city to come back to its glory. And that’s a starting point for any significant changes since you need to believe in them first. “Nothing’s perfect,” says Yale’s wife Emily calmly after acknowledging Yale’s affair with Mary. She is supposed to be the most agonized character in the film since she is the only one being cheated, while the others are just confused about their inappropriate relationships. Yet she seems to be the calmest and most understanding one. Because she, of all people, knows what a difference it makes if you just admit that nothing is perfect and prepare to make compromises along the way. She tolerates Yale’s affair with Mary and thus she still has her marriage unbroken. Just as how the Koch administration was willing to give up some financial profits in order to reconstruct the public faith in the city. If you are willing to take a look at anywhere in the city now, especially in the Bronx, you know these compromises in the name of hope and faith paid off tremendously.
           And fortunately, that is exactly what this film is trying to do, to give us hope. Just as Tracy’s final words before leaving for London, “you gotta have a little faith in people”, followed by some astounding images of Manhattan along with “Rhapsody of Blue”, as we are once again impressed by the beauty of the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building and the 59th Street Bridge. We can almost hear Allen whispering to our ears, “you gotta have a little faith in the city too.” Tracy cannot stay with Isaac and has to leave him for the time being, just as the city disappointed its people and was in disarray back then. But that doesn’t mean changes won’t happen. “Six months isn’t that long,” says Tracy. And we know she will be back eventually. As for the city, a decade is nowhere near the end of the world. It’s exactly because of people like Woody Allen and his Manhattan that we realize how difficult it is to be free of trouble and how little that matters when we have the right attitude, and a little faith.

    看伍迪的电影，里面总是充满着台词，让你来不及看。但是只要你认真看了，你会发现伍迪是多么天才的一个导演，并且他经常打破传统的叙事结构，自己跳出来来一段讲解，一会是剧中人，一会是第三人，这在《安妮.霍尔》里表现尤其明显。
    在《曼哈顿》一片中，台词里充斥着大量的信息：克尔凯郭尔、伯格曼、安定、消极感受力、忠诚藏......可以说有的人可能看着一头雾水，有的人却总是会心。这就好比古时唐诗里的典故，藏的越深，读着越难，而碰到个会解的则会从诗里得到莫大的享受，这诗也就备受推崇。所以古人文人墨客之间多有应酬，而伍迪的片子也正是如此，他不是拍给所有人看的，那些自以为受过良好教育的小资产阶级尤其爱看，他迎合了一个空虚、膨胀、想要向外兜售的头脑。

“Tracey you look great. You're gonna be the thing that settles the argument between God and Job. God would've said: ' Well I did a lot of terrible things but, hey, I made one of these.' ”




After the uttering of the above, Woody Allen kissed her over-aged Lolita (17 years old) on a coach striding around the Central Park. See the problem with me is that, I can never spurt out the name of any heroes in a Woody Allen film, especially those played by himself, not even immediately after the viewing. I guess old Woody’s mind-spinning pace of speaking and the facial expression on his weirdly attractive potato-shaped, you know, face, are enough hors d'oeuvre to savor on, leaving little room for mundane dessert like “a name”.



See I never got the chance to ride the coach when I was in the Big Apple, and when the chance pop up before me, I mean in Atlanta, I didn’t take it. For one thing they charged 20 bucks for 20 minutes’ ride around World of Coca-Cola. For another it was kinda pointless to embark on such a journey without a lover at your side. I’ve seen Big and Carrie riding it in Sex and the Cites, now there comes old Woody, prattling about the tackiness of it all while taking all the advantages. There is this nostalgic thing about two skinny old horses hardly fit to look up dragging a coach around Manhattan. It is almost tragic, and I don’t just mean the horses.



Yes, Manhattan is strangely sad. Every skyscraper, town house and tenement hall, antiquated or brand new, is personifying that sadness in various traces, left by their inhabitants who mourn the brevity of life’s happiness everyday, starkly exposed in the downtown sunlight. I’m starting to sound helplessly melodramatic and vehemently dull. Yes I know how dull I can be.
 


That’s the different between old Woody and me. He takes a dull theme (could be an unbelievably dull one, mind you) and makes it otherwise. Just for everybody’s information, I don’t usually sound so dull. Once I joked a man into orgasm, I really did. But I’m losing the grip lately. I think it has something to do with a detective novel I’m translating. What kind of detective story is it that blabbers along 6 chapters without anyone being killed?—No one even bleeds, for god’s sake. Those Viking people really should’ve made better decision about introducing books to China.



In Manhattan, the highly intelligent woman who nominate George Gershwin, F. S. Fitzgerald and Ingmar Bergman for Prize of Being Horribly Overrated is always wasting herself with a married man, the stunningly beautiful wife is always leaving her husband for another woman and publishing a book describing every single detail of her empty and meaningless late marriage, Richard Cory is always falling in love with the girl he just dumped, the saintly integrated teenager is always hung up too much to a man older than her father. Let’s say Manhattan is the place for these things. Few truly know the desire of their hearts, and those who do know, are in lack of means to secure it.

                   

 "He adored New York City. He idolised it all out of proportion. "
 "To him, no matter what the season was, this was still a town that existed in black and white and pulsated to the great tunes of George Gershwin. "
 "He was too romantic about Manhattan, as he was about everything else. "
 "He thrived on the hustle, bustle of the crowds and the traffic. "
 "To him, it was a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture. "
 "The same lack of integrity to cause so many people to take the easy way out was rapidly turning the town of his dreams..."
 "He was as tough and romantic as the city he loved. "
 "Behind his black-rimmed glasses was the coiled sexual power of a jungle cat. "
 "New York was his town and it always would be. "



There’s never gonna be a perfect way to tell a story about Manhattan, New York. You’re either too angry, too preachy, too corny, or of too poor a taste. Our old pal Woody thinks that New Yorkers are constantly creating real (now that’s important), unnecessary, neurotic problems for themselves “cos it keeps them from dealing with more unsolvable, terrifying problems about the universe.” Well, I think the neurotic problems are results of people’s disinterest in “more unsolvable, terrifying problems about the universe”. They just don’t give a damn. They’re too tired. There’s no strategic shrinking here. This is just one more stale fact about existence.



Do you get the moral here? Have fun with and faith in people with whatever might you can summon up, lest the ducks in the lake of Central Park fly away in summer instead of winter.