战火1946

DVD

主演:卡米拉萨齐奥,罗伯托范隆,多茨·约翰逊

类型:电影地区:意大利语言:意大利语,英语,德语年份:1946

 无尽

缺集或无法播,更换其他线路.

 剧照

战火1946 剧照 NO.1战火1946 剧照 NO.2战火1946 剧照 NO.3战火1946 剧照 NO.4战火1946 剧照 NO.5战火1946 剧照 NO.6战火1946 剧照 NO.13战火1946 剧照 NO.14战火1946 剧照 NO.15战火1946 剧照 NO.16战火1946 剧照 NO.17战火1946 剧照 NO.18战火1946 剧照 NO.19战火1946 剧照 NO.20

 剧情介绍

战火1946电影免费高清在线观看全集。
本片以第二次世界大战末期,在意大利登陆的美军攻破德军防线为背景,导演以令人感动的场面把美军从南部攻到北部期间所引发的一些意大利民间故事编成一部有连贯性的社会写实的电影,画面上的真实感,给予人们非常大的冲击,创下了意大利电影的新潮流……大师罗西里尼的战后三部曲的第二部,第一部是《罗马,不设防的城市》,最后一部是《德意志零年》。作为新现实主义的奠基人,罗西里尼几乎不使用剧本,并明确拒绝使用摄影棚、服装、化妆和职业演员。影片由6个小故事组成,背景是二战后期盟军在意大利登陆后攻破德军防线,从南部向北部进攻期间引发的一些民间小故事。罗西里尼在摄影机前重现了美国大兵,游击队员、修道士,妓女,以及普通平民在那个烽火连天的岁月里的真实遭遇,影片穿插了很多真实的战争镜头,令观众感同身受。六扇门之嫣州八艳日在校园阿娜尔罕巴哈姆特之怒 VIRGIN SOUL心机遥望南方的童年爱之岛迫降航班深海鱼男美少女战士第五季我为歌狂错缘怪兽娘(黑)~奥特怪兽拟人化计划~相爱相杀B计划善良的生存梅·马丁: 原汁原味(英语版)杀之暂缓逮捕蝙蝠侠:漫长的万圣节(下)1号通缉令谐帝为尊小孤星1991年中央电视台春节联欢晚会新娘与偏见浪漫的事杨光的快乐生活1菲尔来蹭饭第二季身体虚颜哥哥,谁带你回家双面女蝎星魔法律事务所 第二季开天辟地南方女王第三季爱琴海历险记从蓝色房间开始的一天勾魂地堡你丫闭嘴记忆碎片2016媚狐传驶入心途结婚吧,我会更爱你

 长篇影评

 1 ) 【119】《战火》——鲸鱼推荐872部好电影

战火浮生录

《战火》 Paisà 年代:1946年 / 国家:意大利 / 导演:罗伯特·罗西里尼 / 主演:卡梅拉·萨齐奥、茱莉艾塔·玛西娜、卡尔·穆尔

    大卫·格里菲斯的《党同伐异》算是“拼盘电影”的滥觞,而罗西里尼承接了这一形式,在《战火》中讲述了6个相对独立的小故事,并把这些故事的背景统一在第二次世界大战的意大利,从平民的微观视角来表现盟军的美国跟意大利的关系。由于形式很新颖,使得它不仅在罗西里尼的“战后三部曲”(另外两部是《罗马,不设防的城市》和《德意志零年》)中独树一帜,而且从新现实主义风格影片里也是独一无二的。
    第一个故事是登陆意大利后的美国大兵跟一个当地的姑娘独处,两人从抵触到消除隔阂,建立起了友谊。第二个故事是一个美国黑人大兵的鞋子被一个小男孩偷走了,他追到了男孩的住处,被眼前的破败震惊了。第三个故事是个爱情悲剧,一个美国大兵跟一个妓女过夜时聊起自己曾爱过的姑娘,殊不知这个妓女就是那个姑娘。前三个故事分别以信任、谅解和爱恋这些人性中美好的品格为主题,展现出人和人之间的友善和依恋的关系。后三个故事相对可看性较低,但也分别以执着、信仰和献身作中心,全景式地呈现了战争中的意大利,人物从底层的贫民窟小孩、妓女,到前线的游击队员、寻找战士的家属,以及教堂里的神职人员等等,全部的真实剧情,加上非职业演员出演,令影片的纪实性、戏剧性和宿命感全都十分强烈。战争是最能体现人性复杂点的熔炉,它可能会锻造出一座巴别塔,也能让绝望中透露出一丝希望。

笑点
    第17分钟,乔和卡米拉这两个语言不通的异国男女,坐着聊起了天。美国大兵乔想家了,而卡米拉却把“家”这个字理解成了“比如”;乔的老家是饲养奶牛的农场,卡米拉却以为是“叮当”;谈到奶牛,卡米拉说起之前有几个孩子站在牛身上的事情,可乔误以为是卡米拉怀了孩子。总之这两个人完全不在同一个频道上,却依然聊得津津有味,也许是他们之间产生了一种超越了语言的纽带,让这两个不同文化背景的人能够实现特殊的沟通。
<图片1>


泪点
    第58分钟,美国大兵出发前发现了口袋里的纸条,但是他以为是妓女留的,就随手扔掉了。其实那个妓女就是他心心念念的弗兰西斯卡,此时她正冒着雨在约定的地方等他,可他却就这样错过了这次相聚。阴差阳错的遗憾令人扼腕叹息。


加我微信jingyurizhi

 2 ) 战争期间,世事百态

        Roberto Rossellini在这部电影中,讲述了六段故事。
        第一个故事:一队美国士兵在意大利本土登陆,经历了一番波折之后,才取得了一个意大利姑娘的帮助,又经历了一段鲜血的洗礼之后,意大利人和美国人之间终于实现了一定程度上的互相尊重与理解。
        第二个故事:一个意大利孤儿偷走了一个美国宪兵的皮鞋,之后被这个美国宪兵捉拿归案,但在了解了这名孤儿的悲惨身世之后,被这个美国宪兵放走了,还把那双皮鞋送给了这个可怜的孩子。一段喜剧与悲剧色彩,现实主义与理想主义交织的故事。
        第三个故事:讲述了一个美国大兵和一个意大利本土女人之间的悲剧爱情故事。它象征着当时美国远征军与意大利本土居民之间的“蜜月期"的结束。美国人刚到意大利时,他们是意大利女人们的英雄,美国兵们呢,他们把每个意大利女人都看作是天使。但似乎没过多久,他们就互相“不爽”起来,美国兵们被意大利女人们看作是一个个”好色的兵痞子“。美国兵们呢?他们把所有意大利女人看作是妓女。究竟谁该对(出现)这样的状况负责?
      Rossellini在此只是作出客观的叙述,然后提出问题,答案让观众们自己去思考。
        第四个故事:讲述一个男人,一个女人在枪林弹雨中寻找自己各自爱人的故事,简单的故事架构,在Rossellini导演下,却充满着强烈的戏剧张力。
        第五个故事:是关于宗教的。讲述了一群宗教观点不同的宗教界人士住在同一个屋檐下后,发生的故事,(在几位美国随军牧师【犹太教,新教】和一帮意大利本土的(天主教)神甫之间)。
        Rossellini在此想说的是,就算是战争涂炭世界,我们也要时刻保持对上帝的虔诚。
        第六个故事:它讲述一群不同国籍的反法西斯战士(美国人,英国人,西班牙人,中国人,意大利游击队)的战斗故事。让人感觉比较平淡,乏味的一个段落,在此不再详述。
  
  

 3 ) 原谅我给了一星

好像说本片是大师罗西里尼的战后三部曲的第二部,里面有六个小故事(算吧我都不记得几个了),开始一个美兵和西西里菇凉语言不同,靠手部动作沟通,开始还有点期待剧情怎么发展,哪知道又来了一个小孩偷鞋的故事以为是支线。。。

第三个故事是个爱情悲剧,一个美国大兵跟一个妓女过夜时聊起自己曾爱过的姑娘,殊不知这个妓女就是那个姑娘越看越乱,电影结构又松散。

原谅我给了一星,水平有限不懂欣赏!

 4 ) 克拉考尔评《战火》

Roberto Rossellini’s Paisan [Italy 1946] surpasses his Open City [Italy 1945] in breadth of vision and significance. Open City was still a drama; Paisan is an epic, comparable only to [The Battleship] Potemkin [USSR 1925, dir. Sergei Eisenstein], though profoundly different from it.

This new Italian film consists of six real-life episodes which take place during the Italian Campaign. They seem entirely unconnected, except for the fact that their succession corresponds to the advance of the Allied armies. The first episode records the adventures of an American patrol immediately after the landing in Sicily. Led by an Italian peasant girl, the Americans explore a ruined castle—a nocturnal reconnaissance which culminates in a magnificent conversation between the girl and one of the soldiers. But this bilingual idyll does not last long. A few Germans emerg- ing from nowhere shoot the soldier and then kill the girl for having fired at them. When, alarmed by the shooting, the rest of the Americans return, they take it for granted that the girl has lured them into a trap, and her simple-hearted sacrifice passes unnoticed.

The second episode, in Naples, features a street urchin and a Military Policeman—an American Negro who is thoroughly drunk. The boy, set on stealing the Negro’s shoes, guides him to a rubble heap among the ruins, where his prospective victim raves about the hero reception prepared for him in New York and his home town. But the word “home” provokes a sudden shift of moods in him. He says he will not go home; and in a state of despondency he falls asleep, an easy prey for the boy. Shortly later, the Negro captures the thief and makes him return the shoes. The boy is a war orphan living in a cave crammed with ragged women and children. Overwhelmed by pity, the Negro leaves the shoes behind in the cave. Colorful street incidents round out the brilliant thumbnail sketches of these two stray creatures. The scene in the marionette theatre in which the frantic Negro climbs the miniature stage to defend a Moor is a veritable gem sparkling with Quixotic spirit.

The subsequent Roman episode is a somewhat literary love story, with a touch of Maupassant. Six months after the fall of Rome a drunken Ameri- can soldier follows a prostitute to her room. He is no drunkard but a sensi- tive boy appalled by the ever-increasing corruption around him. Instead of simply sleeping with the girl, he tells her about Francesca, the first girl he met on entering Rome on the day of liberation. A flashback, rich in charming details, renders their innocent flirtation and its premature end. Why did you never go back, asks the prostitute. He mutters that he could not find the house. The prostitute, trembling, describes it. He dozes off, vaguely realizing her identity. Next day, she despairingly waits for him, while he himself, on the point of leaving, tears up the slip of paper with her address. He mounts a truck, and the armies move on.

The fourth episode shows the Allies in the outskirts of Florence, pre- paring the last assault on the city, in which the Partisans are already at grips with the Germans and Fascists. An American nurse, eager to join her Florentine lover of prewar days, learns that he is “Lupo,” the legendary Partisan leader. The whole is a pictorial report on what happens to her and an Italian friend as they slip through the front lines into the Partisan-held sector of Florence. They walk past two British officers, portrayed in all their languid fastidiousness; they pass along the corridors of the abandoned Uffizi, catching a glimpse of three German soldiers who slowly advance deep down on the street. When they finally reach a bullet-swept street corner, one of the few Partisans defending this position is fatally wounded. His comrades liquidate two Fascists on the spot. Before dying in the arms of the nurse, the wounded Partisan says that Lupo has been killed that very morning. “God,” says the nurse.

In the fifth episode three American chaplains in search of shelter enter a remote Franciscan monastery in the Apennines and are accommodated there for the night. The naive unworldliness of the monks is characterized in scenes born out of respect and highlighted by an imperceptible smile. No sooner do the monks find out that one of their guests is a Protestant and the other a Jew than they involve the Catholic chaplain in a sort of religious disputation. Thesis stands against thesis: the worried monks insist that those two lost souls must be saved, while their urbane coreligionist believes them able to attain a state of grace outside the Church. This duel in pious dialectics is the more exquisite since battles are raging in the neighborhood. The end comes as a surprise. The zealous monks impose a fast on themselves for the sake of the Jew and the Protestant, and the Catholic chaplain praises their humility, instead of reaffirming his stand on tolerance. It is a strange conclusion, somewhat reminiscent of the spiritual note in Silone’s novels.1

The last episode is a terrible nightmare unfolding in the marshes of the Po Valley, where flat land and sky fuse into a monotonous universe. A small group of Italian Partisans, British flyers, and American O.S.S. agents engage in a hopeless combat action behind the enemy lines. You do not see the Germans at first; you see only the corpse of a Partisan floating across the water. The reeds are filled with threats; unknown dangers lurk around the lonely house which in its isolation deepens the impression of monotony. Then, after an eternity of unbearable suspense, the massacre takes its course. The people in the house are killed indiscriminately, except for a little child who, outside the house, screams and screams, deserted by the dead on the ground. The Partisans, bound hand and foot, are thrown into the water. The horrified English and American prisoners see them, one by one, disappear, unable to stop the clockwork process. Another witness is left: the Partisan leader hanging behind the prisoners.

“This happened in the winter of 1944,” a commentator says at the very end. “A few weeks later, spring came to Italy and the war in Europe was declared over.”

All these episodes relate the experiences of ordinary people in a world which tends to thwart their noblest efforts. The dead Sicilian girl is cal- lously slandered by those who should have honored her; Francesca, the fresh Roman girl, turns prostitute, and her decent lover sinks into emo- tional inertia. It is the war which dooms them. Yet it is not always the war: in the case of the Negro, his fate results from circumstances entirely unconnected with events in Italy.

What endears these people to us is their inborn dignity. They have dignity in the same way that they breathe or eat. Throughout the film, humanity appears as a quality of man’s nature, as something that exists in him independently of his ideals and creeds. Rossellini’s Partisans never refer to their political convictions; rather, they fight and die in a matter-of- fact way, because they are as they are. And the Negro is simply a humane creature, filled with compassion, love of music, and Quixotic reveries.

This emphasis on the reality of good nature is coupled with a marked indifference to ideas. Of course, the Nazis appear as hateful, but it seems they are hated only for their acts of savagery and their vulgar conduct. All judgments are concerned with human dignity, and what goes beyond it is completely omitted. There is in the whole film not a single verbal statement against Fascist rule, nor any message in favor of democracy, let alone a social revolution. And the surface impression, that Paisan advo- cates pacifism, must be dismissed also, for it is scarcely compatible with the experience of the Catholic chaplain, to whom the war has been a great lesson in tolerance. This deliberate disregard of all “causes,” including that of humanity, can be explained only by a profound skepticism about their effects. Even the most praiseworthy cause, Paisan implies, is bound to entail fanaticism, corruption, and misery, thus interfering with the free flow of a good and meaningful life. Significantly, the Sicilian peasants are suspicious of American liberators and German invaders alike; and the Roman episode bears out their suspicions by highlighting the demoraliza- tion wrought upon the liberated in less than six months.

The attitude behind Paisan is in keeping with the film’s episodic struc- ture. In stringing together six separate episodes, Rossellini manifests his belief in the independence of human dignity from any overarching idea. If humanity materialized only under the guidance of an idea, then a single, well-composed story might suggest itself to express the latter’s significance (viz. Potemkin). But humanity is here part and parcel of reality and there- fore must be traced in various places. The six isolated episodes indicate that streaks of it are found everywhere.

Since Paisan confines itself to real-life experiences, its documentary style is most adequate. The style, cultivated by D.W. Griffith, Flaherty, and the Russian film directors, is genuinely cinematic, for it grows out of the urge, inherent in the camera, to explore the world of facts. Like Eisenstein or Flaherty, Rossellini goes the limit in capturing reality. He shoots on location and prefers laymen to professional actors. And instead of working from an elaborate script, with each detail thought out in advance, he lets himself be inspired by the unforeseeable situations that arise in the process of filming.

These techniques become virtues because of Rossellini’s infatuation with reality and his gift for translating its every manifestation into cin- ematic terms. He masters horror scenes no less expertly than moments of tenderness, and the confused street crowd is as near to him as is the abandoned individual in it. His camera angles and twists of action owe their existence to sparks of intuition ignited by the closest touch with the given material. And directed by him, most people play themselves without seeming to play at all. To be sure, Paisan has its weak spots: parts of the Sicilian episode are shot in slapdash fashion; the Roman love story is too much of a story; the nurse and her companion in the Florentine episode are strangely flat; and the Catholic chaplain is not entirely true to type. But these occasional lapses amount to little within a film which sets a new pattern in documentary treatment. Its wonderful freshness results from Rossellini’s unflinching directness in formulating his particular notion of humanity. He knows what he wants to say and says it as simply as possible.

Are examples needed? Far from capitalizing, after the manner of The Last Chance [USA 1945, dir. Leopold Lindtberg], on bilingual dialogue to sell the idea of international solidarity, Paisan presents the mingling of lan- guages in wartime Italy without any purpose. In the opening episode, the conversation between the Sicilian girl and the American soldier in charge of her is a linguistic dabbling which, born out of the latter’s boredom and loneliness, does not lead up to anything. Yet precisely by recording their pointless attempts at mutual understanding with infinite care, Rossellini manages to move and fascinate us. For in the process these two people, left speechless by their mother tongues, increasingly reveal what as a rule is buried under conventional phrases.

Each episode abounds in examples. When the drunken G.I. tells the Roman prostitute about his yearning for Francesca, he is seen lying on the couch, with his legs apart in the foreground—a shot which renders his physical disgust and moral disillusionment to perfection. Though long shots are ordinarily less communicative than close shots, Rossellini draws heavily on them in the last episode to picture the marshes. He does so on purpose, for these shots not only convey the impression of desolate monotony, but, through their very flatness, they make the ensuing mas- sacre seem more dreadful. A model of artistic intelligence are the street scenes in the Neapolitan episode. First it is as if these loosely connected shots of performing jugglers, ragged natives, blackmarketing children, and idling G.I.’s were inserted only in the interest of local color. Shortly, however, it becomes evident that they also serve to characterize the Negro. As he reemerges from the marionette theatre, his companion, the wily boy who does not want to lose him, begins to play a harmonica; and, enticed by these heavenly sounds, the Negro follows the little Pied Piper through streets teeming with the crowds and diversions that have already been impressed upon us. So we are all the more struck by the impact of the trickling harmonica music on the Negro.

This last example well illustrates the way Rossellini organizes his mate- rial. There is a veritable gulf between his editing style and the “montage” methods used in Potemkin and other early Soviet films. For Rossellini deliberately turns his back on ideas, while the Russian film directors aim exclusively at driving home a message. Paisan deals with the human assets of ordinary people; Eisenstein’s Potemkin shows ordinary people wedded to the cause of revolution. All editing devices in the Eisenstein film are calculated not only to render a historic uprising, but to render it in the light of Marxist doctrine. In Potemkin, the priest’s face, besides being his face, stands for Tsarist oppression, and the sailors are made to appear as the vanguard of the proletariat. Nothing of that kind occurs in the Italian film. On the contrary, Rossellini so composes his narrative that we never feel challenged to seek symbolic meanings in it. Such instances of oppres- sion or humanity as Paisan offers are strictly individual facts which do not admit of generalization. Rossellini patiently observes where Eisen- stein ardently constructs. This accounts for the thrill of a few shots which represent border cases. I am thinking in particular of the documentary shot of the three German soldiers in the Florentine episode. Reminiscent, perhaps deliberately so, of similar shots in official Nazi documentaries, it is inserted in such a manner that it affects us as a true revelation of German militarism. The allusiveness of this shot is sufficiently strong to drive us beyond the bounds of immediate reality, and yet too unobtrusive to make us lose contact with it.

Paisan is all the more amazing as it defies the traditional patterns of film making in Italy. The Italian prewar screen was crowded with historical extravaganzas and beautifully photographed dramas that displayed inflated passions before decorative settings—a long progression of glossy products, led by d’Annunzio’s world-famous Cabiria, of 1914. Taking advantage of their audience’s love for theatrics, these films reflected both the glitter and the hollowness of the regime under which they flourished. . . . It is a far cry from d’Annunzio to Rossellini, from the spectacular to the real. The sudden emergence of such a film as Paisan indicates that many Italians actually loathe the grand-style manner of the past and all that it implied in allegiances and sham beliefs. They have come to realize the futility of Mussolini’s conquests and they seem now determined to do without any messages and missions—at least for the moment.

And this moment is a precarious one for the Italians. Fascist rule has ended, the new government is weak, and the country resounds with inter- nal strife. During this interregnum the Italians might feel completely lost, were it not for a compact cultural heritage which protects them from dis- integration. Theirs is an articulate sense of art and a tested way of putting up with the tragedies common to mortals. And under the undiminishing spell of custom they knowingly enjoy the rites of love making and the gratifications of family life. No doubt, the Church has played its part in shaping and civilizing these people throughout the ages. That they are aware of it perhaps accounts for the surprise ending of the Monastery episode in Paisan—that scene in which the American chaplain bows to the religious ardor of the Italian monks, thus disavowing what he has said about the inclusiveness of true tolerance shortly before. His deliber- ate inconsistency can be considered a tribute to Italian Catholicism and its humanizing effects.

Italian everyday life, then, is rich in meaningful outlets for all imagin- able needs and desires. So the Italians do not sink into a vacuum when they refuse, as they are now doing, to let themselves be possessed with ideas. Even without ideas they still have much to rely upon. And since their kind of existence, mellow and sweet as it is, has long since become second nature to them—something that seems to them as natural as the blue sky or the air they breathe—they may well believe that their repudiation of ideas relieves their lives of excess baggage. What remains, in their opinion, is humanity, pure and simple. And in their case, as Paisan demonstrates, humanity assumes all the traits of self-sufficient reality.

This is a mirage, though, which may appear as more than a mirage only at a very particular moment, such as the Italians are now going through. Paisan is delusive in that it virtually makes the triumph of humanity dependent on a world released from the strain of ideas, or “causes.” We cannot feel this way. As matters stand, we know humanity would be irre- trievably bogged down if it were unsustained by the ideas mankind breeds in desperate attempts to improve its lot. Whatever their consequences, they hold out a promise to us. Rossellini’s film dismisses the audience without any such promise. But this does not invalidate its peculiar greatness. And precisely in these postwar years with their tangle of oblique slogans and propaganda artifices, Paisan comes to us as a revelation of the steady flow of humanity beneath the turmoil of sheer ideology. So, if Paisan does not kindle hopes, yet it reassures us of the omnipresence of their sources.

原文出处:Siegfried Kracauer's American Writings Essays on Film and Popular Culture

Paisan (1948) P156

 5 ) 战争带给人的……

《战争带给人的……》
  ——罗西里尼战争三部曲(罗马,不设防的城市、战火、德意志零年)观后感
  
  巾城/文
  
  罗西里尼摄制于二战前后的三部不朽的电影。从《罗马》揭露法西斯的罪恶、展现人性的光辉,到《战火》四两拨千斤的六个小故事,再到《德意志》深刻探讨战后初期的法西斯后遗症,它们干练、紧凑,在紧紧围绕战争主题同时,每一部都展现出独特的令人尊敬的地方——尤其考虑到它们的制作年份及所呈现的与慌乱的时代不符的从容的艺术性。
  《罗马》是一部从拍摄手法上非常“正统”的故事片,但其情节曲折饱满,每一个剧情高潮都极具渲染力。片中不同身份的人(地下共产党人、天主堂主教、家庭妇女、孩子,等等)因对丑恶的反抗而走到一起,导演并未突出任何人的个人身份,而展现了一种超越个体的对理想与信念的执着。另一边,法西斯分子种种残暴的行为作为它的反面,极大拉伸了故事的张力,使正面力量虽已悲剧告终,但其最终的胜利在感情上已显得不可避免。(客观讲,这也是此类电影常规所运用的方式;考虑到影片拍摄时二战尚未完全结束,且片子整体质量上乘,即使从极苛刻的角度讲在某些方面并未“走出俗套”,依然值得尊敬。)片中还有一段德国军官的自我反思,虽较为做作,但考虑当时的实际情况,它对整个片子的意义是起推动作用的。
  这部电影在战后几十年间似乎被一部分人转而视为一部共产主义教育电影,事实上这是一种歪解。虽然它的部分主人翁确为共产党人,但当时的共产党(至少是罗氏镜头下的意大利地下共产党)和其后在一些国家获得执政的共产党,其理念、行为方式及所处的社会位置都是不可同日而语的。况且,影片并未援引任何共产主义理念,所有人物之所以为其身份,是因为艺术人物需要身份,而在当时现实情形下,给他(她)们这些身份又是最符合实际的。他们所共同从事的事业的意义——而不是身份的意义——才是影片的重点。病急乱投医似地在历史作品中寻求对自己的正面支持一直都不是一个特别可取的行为,它既无法为你的观点或所作所为雄辩,又只会暴露你的无知、虚妄,及一种因对未来充满恐惧而迫切希望自我标榜的虚弱心态。
  
  《战火》,六个发生在不同地区的二战前后的小故事。影片妙笔在于,导演在该收时即收,绝不留恋镜头,有时甚至留下开放式的结局,这使片子充满空间感,加之故事的节奏紧凑,使得观者无论眼睛还是大脑都无法离开屏幕。下面是一些我个人的简单理解。
  一,它展现的是战争时期人与人间的敏感和恐惧,它直接导致了不必要的悲剧的发生。恐惧的根源在于不同阵营和身份间的互相杀戮,而行为与行为人立场之间的联结很多时候事实上是模糊的。(这里援引一句米切尔在《飘》中借艾希礼之口说的话:“主义早在枪响的那一刻就灰飞烟灭了。”)它最后演变为一种不同人与不同人之间简单的敌对和猜忌。这也从侧面证明了,无论以何种理由,杀人行为的最终受害者永远都是无辜的人。
  影片花了很多精力描述女孩与美国兵在海边残垣上的聊天,从大海到家人,显得朦胧而遥远。这是人与人互相亲切的本能在最艰难的情境下的显现,它让最后悲剧性的结局令人唏嘘不已。
  二,它的主角是一个美国黑人大兵和一个意大利小孩。罗氏给了这个黑人一颗很高尚的心。考虑到其制作年份,这是一个另观者感动,令美国人脸红的故事。
  三,发生罗马城解放后的爱情片段。它讲的是男人与女人对于瞬间的爱情不同的态度。女人较为感性,她健忘,但易感动,所以既显得见异思迁,又有一股纯情的天真和冲动。男人则较为理性,他将美好的发生珍藏,但仅仅作为一种回忆,当回忆与现实产生碰撞时,他决不让前者影响后者。影片最后,男人与部队一起离开城市,而女人站在雨中的屋檐下等待他的归来。很显然,根据以上逻辑,她不会等他太久,因为能让她感动的人和事还有很多;而他会一直记着这个插曲,但不再视其为现实的一部分。影片没有走到这一步,它在恰当的时候收手,留下一个天各一方的故事,男人的一半归男人,女人的一半归女人。
  四,两个不同身份的人穿越德军封锁线,一个为了家人,另一个为了可能与她有特殊关系的游击队员“狼”(他原是个艺术家)。前者在一个士兵的掩护下成功穿越,掩护他的士兵身亡;后者在抱起奄奄一息的士兵时得知了“狼”的死讯。短片道出在兵荒马乱的岁月中人生存的艰难;而即使再这么艰难的环境中,依然有人为了他人而冒死奔波,这也许只能是人的一种崇高本能。
  五,三个美国人,一个天主教徒、一个新教徒和一个犹太教徒入宿一家意大利修道院,影片探讨了敌对教派间共有却不能共享的神。处在非前线的意大利天主教神职人员因“迷失的人”(新教徒和犹太人)的闯入而陷入恐慌,甚至戒斋赎罪,但从前线回来的美国天主教徒却劝说他们应在狭义的教条之上看到更广阔的怜悯和我们作为一个人的价值。影片在那位美国人的演讲中结束,同样留下一个开放式的结局。
  六,一个抵抗者被法西斯残忍地处死的故事。它是六个短片中最直接的。将它作为结尾影片,可能有较强的现实考虑。而事实上,鉴于故事本身的紧凑和渲染力,它应该说是成功的。
  
  《德意志》,这是一部极其简练但深刻的影片。它揭示了法西斯主义带给不同人不同的心理扭曲,在它最终灭亡之后,这种扭曲转变为一种重建年代的社会畸形。同时,由于整个国家百废俱兴,也有一部分人因对物质的需求及不满而暴露了人性的丑陋面。影片三分之二的篇幅在描写这些畸形和丑陋,直到男孩听从他法西斯时期的教师的唆使而杀害了他的父亲。
  影片最后的将近三分之一的篇幅用长镜头的方式记录了男孩在弑父后的心理变迁,这种懊悔最终导致了他的自杀。而同时,他的曾是法西斯士兵的哥哥终于决定不再躲避,重新面对生活(为他打开这扇门的正是其父无意间的“临终之言”)。生死间,似乎社会自己对自己完成了某种拯救。但片子最让我震撼的是这种拯救所付出的代价,其沉重似乎在警醒后世的人们政治恐怖主义的代价——表面上,它是迫害、屠戮和对历史的摧残;但在心灵上,它带来的冲击更大,它会改变整整一代甚至几代人的心智,可能须要更大的牺牲和更久的时间才能将其恢复。

 6 ) 看此片理解了新现实主义

罗贝托·罗西里尼的经典作品。讲述二战意大利全境解放前夕的六个小故事。罗西里尼的镜头对真实的捕捉不是没有选择的,但他只靠拍摄下的真实内容来获取逻辑关联来讲故事,从而完成电影叙事的指涉,而不是依靠蒙太奇去“营造”一个故事来达成导演诉求。这取决两点,一是编导对现实发生的事情有着强烈的关注和巨大的情感;二是编导具有敏锐的捕捉现实细节的能力。

而同时,编导的高明之处还在于(之所以强调编导,是因为这部影片的编剧是费里尼)他们并不仅仅满足于“纪录”。在电影叙事中,依然强烈渗透着他们对故事(现实)本身的思考。比如第一个故事里人与人之间的信任与仇恨的产生;第二个故事的人道主义普世情怀;第三个故事中爱情的娇嫩萌芽与它所产生的战争背景这样残酷反差;第四个故事中人面对爱时的不畏死亡;第五个故事则讲述了传统天主教在战争与现代宗教观念挤压下显现出的尴尬,渗透出身为意大利这个纯正天主教国家的编导对战争和宗教的深层思考;第六个故事,用完全写实的游击队员的全体牺牲,突出了意大利人民在二战中的英勇无畏,也是战火刚熄的意大利(影片拍摄于1946年)民心的真实写照。放在影片最后,在当时的语境下,也起到了激励人心的高潮效用。

 短评

其实六个故事都可以变得很煽情,但罗西里尼的妙处就在于点到为止,更加产生一种真实感。战争容不得人们在情感那里停留过长。结尾真是伟大。随着德军溺毙游击队员的河水的动荡波纹,传来了报告1944年冬天二战胜利的话外音。

3分钟前
  • movingdust
  • 力荐

SIFF2014 6.21 15:45 和平四厅 六段式结构,关于人道主义的经典母题,堪称WW2十日谈。

8分钟前
  • g9421
  • 力荐

随着战争的推进见识到了什么?军人、妓女、孤儿、僧侣、游击队员......一切的感情欲喷薄而出之际而又戛然而止。这就是战争!

13分钟前
  • 操蛋的教父
  • 推荐

二战胜利前夕美军进军意大利时的六个故事,每个故事自成一短片,反应出当时社会生活的方方面面,充满了爱与遗憾。每个短片都做到了足够的留白,使得文本之外存有更多的思考空间。影像上比罗马不设防提升了不少,纪录片式的拍摄手法使本片获得了史料价值。

15分钟前
  • 微分流形
  • 推荐

三部曲补全了。小故事的简单连缀,中近景自然光,每个城市每个阶层的人们在战争到来之时的细微情感,和罗马不设防很像,新写实的特点,无头无尾,无言旁观。不过故事本身还是带着一点人情冷暖的诗意。

19分钟前
  • 鬼腳七
  • 推荐

除了第四段都挺喜欢的。尤其前三段,不拍战火,但把战火中的二人关系拍得情感力量十足,悲天悯人;全是一美一意的组合,沟通不畅,但慰藉、温存、错过、遗憾、悲伤的情绪在英语和意语的错落交叉中饱满相融。最后一段也有这样的意味,只可惜真正拍起「战火」本身来,反倒露怯了。

22分钟前
  • 神仙鱼
  • 推荐

战火纷飞,一点又一点地照耀各个阶层、身份与角落。新现实主义冷眼旁观,却又焚心似火,枪眼刀尖下的残酷一览无遗,但一些一擦即着的信任与英勇,如梦似幻的情愫与念想,随风而去的芥蒂与羞赧,总是战争长卷里闪亮的美好。当施暴者被妄念洗脑,希望和平的大势能将他们碾压得体无完肤。@资料馆

23分钟前
  • Mr. Infamous
  • 推荐

罗西里尼战后三部曲第二部,选取了盟军登陆意大利后在西西里,那不勒斯,罗马,佛罗伦萨,教堂和游击队的六段故事。美国人戏都很多,通过他们与当地人的接触和对抗纳粹德军折射诸多语言文化阶级信仰的不同以及劫难经过带来的创伤和改变。资料馆4K修复版。

27分钟前
  • seabisuit
  • 推荐

#资料馆留影#看完后也算大致了解Italia的二战生活,用纪录片的手法(很多珍贵史料,类比《印度》),六个小人物的边缘小故事,关于爱恨关于信仰关于战争,也都与美国大兵有关,作为“战后三部曲”之二,Rossellini的深刻与人文哲思在本片几乎达到一个顶峰,只是这也恰恰成为本片观赏性不强的原因,前几个还好,但等到讲游击队的第六个故事出现时,我几乎有些不耐烦了,但等“FIN”的字幕出现,又忍不住回味,才明白这是怎样一部杰作,Rossellini是怎样一位伟大先驱,他的勇气与创新,直接影响法国“新浪潮”,鼓舞后来影人把摄像机带上街头,对准时刻鲜活又残酷的生活。

32分钟前
  • 瑞波恩
  • 力荐

已下avi 很有意思的小故事,语言交流之外的情感沟通,在特殊背景下的感情故事,人物即普通又典型,最后的结局很有感觉,整片在平静下有一种潜动的力度。看得出有某些费里尼的影子,比起新现的其它作品少了些许悲催与悲悯,多了很多温暖与小趣味。表演虽然僵硬但有时代特色。很舒服的一部短篇集。

37分钟前
  • U 兔
  • 力荐

二战结束次年就拍出这么真实的战争片子不容易 第三段和最好看 其他几个故事不是太精彩

40分钟前
  • 我TM是党员
  • 还行

罗西尼当时一定有种迫切感,这部六个故事组成的电影,相当于战时/战后意大利的纪录片。我最喜欢小男孩和美国黑人那部(黑人唱歌太美),还有教堂那部,修士们感觉太真实了。

42分钟前
  • Adieudusk
  • 推荐

罗西里尼 战后三部曲的第二部,第一部是《罗马,不设防的城市》,最后一部是《德意志零年》。

44分钟前
  • 只抓住6个
  • 还行

勉强及格。六个短片的合集,呈现了盟军登陆意大利后的种种情状,六个故事的时间背景比较散乱,风格也不一样。一是帮美国兵带路的意大利姑娘死在孤堡,二是美国黑人兵和偷鞋孩子的交情(这些小孩还玩起了卖黑人的把戏),三是美国兵与已做了妓女的意大利姑娘重逢,二人曾一见钟情最后还是戛然而止(这是全片唯一令人动容的时刻),四是寻找昔日画家如今的游击队领导却听闻对方死讯,五是美国随军牧师与意大利教士达成理解,六是44年胜利前夕一支悲壮抵抗至死的游击队的故事。借46年真实世情的帮助,镜头里有不少残垣断壁,还雇了战斗机出镜,临场感尚可,六个故事基本都有乍起旋灭、仿佛从现实上挖取一块下来的纪实倾向,姿态感十足,但并无趣味,反倒是第三、第四个故事在奇情、奇景的通俗路线上走的稳当,摄影也更开阔透亮(第六个的河拍的也挺美)

47分钟前
  • 左胸上的吸盘
  • 还行

120分钟居然看得有点累~六个故事水平太参差了,故事和结构倒是都不差,但有些内核不过知音水平,而且演员太水~最后一个故事除了漂亮的悲剧结局完全是祖国白洋淀抗日故事的意大利抗德版,罗马妓女故事好像日本电影~另,深刻觉得米国人民某种意义上被黑了,各路意大利人演英美人民,英语完全听不懂~

48分钟前
  • Woodring
  • 还行

8/10。在每个篇章开始的拟纪录片中,街头行驶的坦克队列与城市废墟、高耸的古罗马斗兽场遗迹形成一种忧伤的对望,被破坏的历史文明以相互凝视的方式重回视野,如木偶戏片段中代表基督教的白色木偶与象征异教徒的黑色木偶决斗,台下观众们为高喊正义的白色木偶振臂欢呼,一名酒醉的黑人军警冲上舞台,又被愤怒的观众拉下来,无独有偶的是亚平宁修道院的故事,意大利教士为信仰新教、犹太教的美国随军牧师到来而恐慌不已,甚至在窗前跪祈,十字军东征和美国占领军的文化管制、新教与天主教的历史宿怨,当下与历史的边界都在间接喻指中渐渐模糊。罗西里尼采用全景拍摄自然,展现人物时却转换为视角很有限的中近景,使观众迷失了历史与文明的方位,就像火山山丘中迷路的美国大兵无法与村民顺利沟通,就像黑人军警迷失在交错的道路里,被引入复杂的历史语境。

50分钟前
  • 火娃
  • 推荐

确实三部曲最佳(虽然Open City我只看了一半),看完有种虚脱感;就像罗西里尼自己说的,Open City里还有很多“old ingredients”,Paisan真的是pure and new,而且更动人,尤其是那些日常的细节。要拍现实主义,你必须要有对爱的信念。脱离studio,即兴,但仍保有强大的控制力和技术创新,伟大之作。

53分钟前
  • 力荐

#SIFF# 罗西里尼的本质就是悲观中透出一种难以名状的compassion,几个故事都能看得出来。弗兰切斯卡太动人,山中教士一段很受触动。除了对战争与人的描写,更让我印象深刻的是他对于“沟通障碍”的刻画,无论是语言、社会阶层、思想观念、宗教信仰都有涉及,深度惊人。

54分钟前
  • Lycidas
  • 力荐

罗西里尼的战后三部曲的第二部,剧本由导演和费里尼共同完成,里面有六个小故事,分别表现二战期间意大利的不同层面。演员多数是非职业,而且即兴表演的成分很浓。影片具有纪录片的视觉风格,故事结构尽管松散,但欧亨利小说的痕迹依稀可见。影片赢得1946年威尼斯影展的最佳剧情片奖。

58分钟前
  • stknight
  • 推荐

知道为什么费里尼这么喜欢这部电影了。我被每一个故事感动。

60分钟前
  • 把噗
  • 力荐