罪与错

没仔细排版，见谅。

I remember my father telling me, “The eyes of God are on us always.”
The man who remembers is Judah Rosenthal, a respected ophthal-mologist and community leader. As Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemean-orsopens, he is being honored at a banquet. He lives on three acres in Connecticut, drives a Jaguar, built a new wing on the hospital. During the course of the movie he will be responsible for the murder of a woman who loves him.

She dies not because of his passion but for his convenience. In this
darkest and most cynical Allen comedy—yes, comedy—he not only gets away with murder but even finds it possible, after a few months, to view the experience in a positive light. If the eyes of God are on him always, what does that say about God?

Woody Allen has made more than forty movies; the best are Annie
Hall(1976), Hannah and Her Sisters(1987), Crimes and Misdemeanors(1989), and Match Point, which premiered at Cannes 2005. The new film resembles Crimes and Misdemeanors in the way it involves a man who commits murder to cover up an affair, but Match Pointis more firmly a film noir, and Crimes is frankly a complaint against God for turning a blind eye on evil.

Judah, played by Martin Landau as a man of probity and vast self-importance, is, or thinks he is, a moral man. That has not prevented him from having an affair for two years with Dolores (Anjelica Huston), a flight attendant with whom he has walked on the beach and discussed marriage.

But Judah will never divorce his wife, Miriam (Claire Bloom), to marry Dolores. Nor is he capable of confessing his sin to Miriam: “Miriam won’t forgive me,” he tells a rabbi. “She’ll be broken. She idealizes me.” That the conversation with the rabbi is imaginary takes away nothing from its ruth-lessness. What Judah is arguing is that Dolores must die because if Miriam found out about the affair it would—what? Destroy Miriam? Dolores? No, it would destroy his image and stature in the eyes of his wife and his community, and he thinks that is worth killing for.

To be sure, Judah backs into murder. Dolores has been acting dan-gerously. She sent a letter to Miriam that Judah only barely intercepted. She called from a gas station ten minutes down the road, threatening to come to his house and tell Miriam “what she needs to know.” Judah discusses his problem with his brother Jack ( Jerry Orbach), who has connections with the Mafia. “They’ll handle it,” Jack tells him. Handle? “I can’t believe I’m talking about a human being,” Judah says. “She’s not just an insect to be stepped on. . . .”
Yet he steps on her. Dolores knows about certain “financial impro-prieties” that Judah has committed; funds from one place were useful in another. Threatened with exposure on both fronts, Judah makes a call to Jack, and Jack calls back: “It’s taken care of.” Now listen to Judah: “I can’t speak. I’m in shock. God have mercy on us, Jack.” How about a little mercy for Dolores? Judah has mastered the art of ameliorating his crime by being shocked at it. Yes, he had Dolores killed—but if he feels terrible about it, doesn’t that prove he’s not an entirely bad man?

The movie intercuts this tragic story with a comedy, also about adul-tery. The technique is Shakespearean: the crimes of kings are mirrored for comic effect in the foibles of the lower orders. Allen plays Cliff Stern, a maker of documentaries of stultifying boredom; in one, an old man in thick glasses discusses metaphysics. Cliff is married to Wendy ( Joanna Gleason).

She has two brothers: Ben (Sam Waterston), the rabbi, who is going blind and is being treated by Judah, and Lester (Alan Alda), the creator of incred-ibly successful TV sitcoms.

Cliff detests Lester. Consider the scene where we first see the two
men together; Lester is on the left flanked by his sister and another woman, holding court. Cliff is on the right, slightly more in the foreground, and half-turned away from the action and toward us. He seems barely able to prevent himself from turning to the camera and telling us directly what a jerk Lester is. The visual strategy is subtle but wonderful: Allen delivers a monologue using only body language.

Cliff is offered a job directing a documentary about Lester. “You
weren’t my first choice,” the Alda character cheerfully tells him. “I’m doing it as a favor to my sister.” While making the film, Cliff meets a production assistant named Halley (Mia Farrow) and falls for her. They have a little non-affair; Cliff is not made for big affairs, but for modest displays of erotic self-deprecation. He proposes marriage to her, despite the fact that he has barely kissed her and is obviously married to Wendy.

So now we have two married men discussing marriage with other
women. That Judah will not really marry Dolores destroys her (“I was at a low point when I met you!” she cries in raw emotion. “You turned every-thing around!”). That Cliff might actually marry Halley, or thinks he might, is fielded by her with tact: she announces a trip to London, thinks they ought to “have some time apart,” and returns engaged to—yes, Lester. Cliff is morally offended by her choice, despite the inarguable fact that Lester is single and available (and also rich and successful), and Cliff is married, poor, and has been fired from the documentary after a scene comparing Lester to Mussolini.

The Woody Allen scenes provide the kind of stand-up self-analysis
and kvetching that his characters are famous for. But what happens in the Martin Landau scenes are as calmly shocking as anything Allen has ever done. In that imaginary conversation with the rabbi, Judah refers to his brother’s offer to “take care” of Dolores. “God is a luxury I can’t afford,” he says. “Jack lives in the real world. You live in the kingdom of heaven.” After Judah learns that Dolores has been killed, he visits Dolores’s apartment, sees that she is indeed dead, and takes her address book and other papers that might link him with her.

“Four months later,” we’re told in a subtitle, the principal characters
are gathered at a wedding. Cliff wanders off, outraged at seeing Halley with the despised Lester. Why should a worthless parasite like Lester get the girl? Judah wanders in the same direction, and the two men have a curious conversation. It turns on the idea of a perfect murder. Judah describes “a murder plot” to Cliff. It is the murder he has gotten away with.

But how does it feel to be responsible for the death of another per-son? Can you live with yourself? “Suddenly it’s not an empty universe at all,” Judah tells Cliff. God occupies it, and has eyes, and sees. “The man is an inch away from confessing to the police.” Then suddenly one morning, he wakes up, the sun is shining, his life is good, and he has returned to “his protected world of wealth and privilege.” The moral of this story?

“We define ourselves by the choices we make,” Judah says. By choosing to have Dolores murdered, Judah has defined himself as a man of wealth and privilege, respected by society, “idolized” by his wife, and a murderer. He can live with that.

The implications of Crimes and Misdemeanorsare bleak and hope-less. The evil are rewarded, the blameless are punished, and the rabbi goes blind. To be sure, justice is done in the low-road plot: Cliff does not succeed in leaving his wife to marry a girl for whom he would be the worst possible partner, and the rich and triumphant Lester gets the girl and will possibly make her happy, or at least rich. But in the main story Dolores lies in her grave, and Judah finds that life goes on—for him, at least. For Martin Landau, the performance is a masterpiece of smooth, practiced diplomacy,
as he glides through life and leaves his problems behind. Landau is never more effective than when he is shocked and dismayed at his own behavior. It’s as if he’s regarding himself from outside, with a kind of fascination. He sees what he does, and does nothing to stop it. In his own world, he is the eyes of God.

      看过伍迪艾伦的电影可能有10部多了，随便说两句。
      这部电影有两个故事，一个是伍迪艾伦自己出演的一个有些想法但没获得现实成功的电影制作人遇到喜欢的女导演之后的心动，一个事业有成的中老年男性在受到相处了2年的情人威胁后的内心纠葛和选择（备注：两个故事是交叉叙述的，不是先后叙述的）。
       先说第二个吧，对于“善有善报”或者“内心受谴责”之类的话题似乎这部电影之后伍迪艾伦触及得并不多，直到“赛末点”，但客观来说，十几年之后的“赛末点”就是这部电影里第二个故事的延展和放大，只是它刻画得更加“细致”和更能让人有欲望，如在“赛末点”里人物心里变化的描写，相识和出轨的过程，斯嘉丽.约翰逊的性格与美貌，地道的英音，伦敦的种种街景等等。因此，看完更加“细致”的赛末点再来看这部电影的我，对于第二个故事并没有太多更深的印象，只是觉得伍迪艾伦真的很有才华，只是2013的“赛末点”估计他更愿意“讨好”观众吧。
       关于第一个故事，伍迪艾伦在里面是个彻彻底底的loser。他有才华，有想法，给他一些条件应该可以成事，但片中的他却一事无成，甚至连自己的妻子都觉得他太不现实，他也知道这点，因此其实对那顿婚姻留恋并不多。他生活中最大的“寄托”就是那位女导演，一个还算可以理解和懂他的人，只是最后那个人也用最残忍的一种方式伤害了他（跟他几乎是最讨厌却不得不因为现实“低下头”给他拍片子的那个男的以情侣的形象出现在他面前。而在这之前，那位女导演告诉伍迪艾伦自己现在还没准备好，事业还在上升期，不想思考个人感情的问题，并且要被邀请去伦敦拍几部片子，伍迪艾伦才“不得不”放弃她的）。第一个故事里，细节太多（第二个故事里也有细节，只是看了“赛末点”再回来看这部，细节也都不细了，额...），随便举几个表现出那个女导演是伍迪艾伦生活最大的寄托：1. 他说他sister悲惨的遭遇，妻子直接说我明早有事，我先睡了；2. 他放下手上的事跟那位女导演看很老的音乐剧；3. 担心那位名人对女导演“图谋不轨”；4. 深夜打电话给女导演确认她没事却被告知凌晨12点的时候，名人还在女导演家而深感不安；5. 直言爱那位女导演，想和她结婚，在跟现任妻子这事上没有任何犹豫。也因为这些，影片末段当女导演和名人以情侣的身份出现在伍迪艾伦妻子家庭的聚会上时，伍迪艾伦才可以“惊”到那样的程度，不止因为上述说的那些细节，也因为当时那位女导演可是一起和他奚落过那位名人的。伍迪艾伦彻彻底底傻在那的那个镜头足足给了1分多钟（这对任何电影而言，都是奢侈的，更何况伍迪艾伦的片子一般也就95分钟左右），坦白说，我看得时候觉得，觉得特别心疼——我觉得伍迪艾伦“被彻彻底底地打败了”，用自己都不敢相信的方式“发现自己是彻彻底底的loser“. 然后之后的几分钟，值得影片结束前，伍迪艾伦的状态彻底没了，只是一个人坐在那里，不知道想些什么，甚至不知道怎么跟别人说起。看的时候，我总觉得那些镜头和那些细节或者留白什么的应该真实地发生在伍迪艾伦身上过，不然不可能拍出那么“痛彻心扉”的感觉。里面对伍迪艾伦的“伤害”真的太深了，包括影片后来那位名人和他妻子插科打诨反过来讽刺伍迪艾伦，他妻子不但不反驳还“极为认可”... 备注：伍迪艾伦最穷的时候，确实是每天在酒吧和人分享舞台表演舞台喜剧支撑生活的。

     片中很多话语不只是黑色幽默或者自嘲，更有非常强烈的现实性，这是和一些其他伍迪艾伦电影不同的地方。这部电影印象最深的可能还是一些话吧，无论出自谁的口，挺深刻和哲理的。考虑到这部片子的编剧和导演都是伍迪艾伦，因此那些话语可能都是他相对这个世界说的吧。最后说一句，这部电影里伍迪艾伦的话少了不少（相对于他出演了的其它的电影），因为这部电影里的伍迪艾伦是对自己最不自信的。

观后感，非影评。

1.中国的思维惯式是：性本善还是性本恶？ 西方思维则是存在与本质谁先谁后，存在主义所秉持的是存在先于本质，所谓“性本如何”根本就是伪命题。就像片中男主的亲戚说， Do you not find human impulses basically decent? May姑姑回答，there's basically nothing. 你就是先存在， 一片空白，你的选择才确定你的本质，你并不是一出生就有“美德” ，也不是像基督教思想一直灌输给人类的那样一生下来就是罪人。但又是什么决定了“选择”呢？似乎又回到“本质”上来了，不过外界因素，或者命运，它们的作用也被考量了进来。

2. 如果因为害怕上帝的惩罚而遵守其规则，这便不是自发、真正的道德了。伦理道德准则本质上解决不了任何问题。杀人是罪，那么杀人未遂且无人知道呢？仅仅有杀人的念头而未付诸行动呢？一个人每天会产生多少罪恶的想法呢？影片的编剧伍迪艾伦本人如果从未有杀人的设想，怎么写得出来杀人犯的心理活动？艺术家可能为了表现罪恶而去体验罪恶，变成罪人，也可能在艺术作品中纾解自己罪恶的心事，将其隔离在现实生活、行为领域之外。

3.伍迪艾伦饰演的男主不就是俄狄浦斯吗——他总是自视甚高，谁都瞧不上，觉着自己周边的人尤其是Lester俗不可耐 ，最后经过四个月后被女神“背叛”这一“突转—发现”，才真正意识到自己才是loser，心情跌到低谷。最后俄狄浦斯是自戳双目了，好了，正好又回到贯穿全片的灵魂——眼睛——上帝符号系统来了（误

4.当人们在谈论上帝时，根本谈论的不是同一个事物。语言是思想的边界，上帝已经变成一个语义多到眼花缭乱而因此一文不值的词了。再者，你对上帝有超验的信念，但试问如果你不是在犹太教/基督教浓厚的氛围中长大，你的词语库中从来没出现过上帝这个词，你还会信上帝吗？ 如果即便如此你仍对某个最高价值持超验式的信仰，那个价值凭什么叫做上帝，不叫别的名字？

5.对罪与错的两种典型和极端态度：一种是根本不知道什么是错，换言之，自认为什么都知道，所以认为有权肆意犯罪乃至杀人，毫不自责，就像《鼠疫》中有段话所阐释的那样，又或者汉娜阿伦特平庸之恶的理念，又或《白痴》中提到的一个垂涎同伴的一块表的农民——他先向上帝祈祷一番，之后像宰牲口一样将其杀害，就为了得到那块表，又或者片中医生的弟弟以及落网的连环杀手。另一种是忏悔不止，自我折磨，乃至变成圣愚，又或是对自己要求严格的强者，在软弱的时刻被罪责啮噬，被宗教趁虚而入，被驯化为羔羊一般的庸人，例如帕斯卡。大多数人不会完全不受良心谴责，但也不会被自责折磨到精神崩溃 ，无论如何，一如片中所说的，时间能把悲剧变成喜剧。

6.回想片中发生的一切，对资产阶级道德秩序的倚重是令片中片男主走上犯罪道路的第一步——一个德高望重的眼科医生，一个奋斗半辈子终于成为高级资产阶级的中年男人，是断然不可被一桩出轨丑闻毁于一旦名誉扫地的。 资产阶级道德秩序的作用本应是防止犯罪，然而在现实中却屡屡引发更大的罪。 就像尼采在《论道德的统治》这篇中所说的，“为了使道德获得统治地位，人们必须彻底放弃道德的行为。”“没有伪装他们就永远也达不到他们所说的完美。为了那个需要牺牲品的目标，就必须抛弃道德与真理。”“一位伟大的道德论者必然是杰出的戏子。如果有一天他的伪装突然变成了自然（他的理想就是将他的存在与行动巧妙地区分开来），那就十分危险了。他必须戴着一个美丽的面具来行动。这个华美的外表就是他崇高而远大的理想，他的神圣的理想！事实上众人皆说道德论者是以上帝本人为榜样的。上帝是迄今为止最大的、行动上的非道德论者，尽管如此他却懂得保持他的模样——善良的上帝……"

We're all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions, moral choices. Some are on a grand scale, most of these choices are on lesser points. But we define ourselves by the choices we have made. We are, in fact, the sum total of our choices. Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, Human happiness does not seem to be included in the design of creation. It is only we, with our capacity to love that give meaning to the indifferent universe. And yet, most human beings seem to have the ability to keep trying and even try to find joy from simple things, like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.

When we fall in love, we are seeking to re-find all or some of the people to whom you were attached as children. On the other hand, we ask our beloved to correct all the wrongs that these early parents or siblings inflicted on us. So, love contains in it the contradiction, the attempts to return to the past and the attempt to undo the past.

I've gone out the window.

But we must always remember that when we are born we need a great deal of love in order to persuade us to say in life. Once we get that love it usually lasts us. But the universe is a pretty cold place. It is we who invest it with our feelings. And under certain conditions, we feel the thing isn’t worth it any more.

(粘自维基)

“我们一生中都要不断面对痛苦的抉择、道德抉择。有的选择还意义重大，大部分都是鸡毛蒜皮的小事，但是，我们做什么样的选择就决定了我们是什么样的人。我们实际上是我们所做的选择的总和，世事难料，生活也有诸多不平之事，在上帝造物的时候，仿佛没有考虑到人类幸福这件事，只有靠我们自己每个人爱的能力不同才会赋予这个无情的宇宙以意义。但是，大部分人都有能力继续生活下去，甚至可以从小事中寻找到快乐。比如从家人、工作，还有从对未来一代的希望中找到快乐，希望他们可以更加理解生活。”