也許我欣賞水平太低了，這爛片居然在豆瓣能打8分,里面講的到底是個什么?說鬼片又不恐怖，但把里面的人拍的都跟鬼似的，兩個多小時,男男女女都象夢游一樣喃喃自語,精神錯亂一樣,攝影確實很美，但拍了這樣一部故事都講不清的電影，實在浪費了攝影師的才華，也浪費膠片.

拍電影至少要把故事講清楚,是動作片?科幻片?還是恐怖片?怎么也得讓人看明白，拍一部不倫不類的東西，還不如不拍,電影是門藝術，但主要還是面對大眾的藝術，電影拍出來，要讓絕大多數(shù)人看得懂,卓別林之所以偉大，是因為他笑全世界的人都跟著一起笑,他悲傷,全世界的人都跟著一起悲傷，如果一部電影上演的時候,影院里只有幾個人或笑或哭，其余的都漠然旁觀,那這樣的電影，也就沒有什么太大的藝術價值了.

導演追求藝術可以理解,正因為如此,才會有希區(qū)柯克這樣的名導,拍出了許多部名垂影史的名片,希區(qū)柯克以拍懸疑片著稱,盡管如此,他的影片敘事明白易懂,并沒有把影片拍得令人費解，大體上，追求藝術的導演有兩類,一類是真正的大師,如希區(qū)柯克，一類是故弄玄虛，把影片拍的玄之又玄，大概除了導演自己，沒人明白拍的是什么, 顯而易見,鈴木正是此類.

我相信大部分人和我一樣看不懂這故事講的是什么，因為這根本不是一個完整的故事，分不清哪里是夢哪里是現(xiàn)實，哪里是意識而哪里是真實。

片中的男主（松田優(yōu)作飾演）不斷遇到一位少婦，又不斷失去她，為了重溫魚水之歡，他又不斷地去尋找她，在這個大的故事里面，提及了幾個似有似無的小故事。

先不說意識流，說這些似有似無的故事，來自泉鏡花的同名小說，泉鏡花被稱作開創(chuàng)了“觀念小說”的先河，當然我不是學文學的，對“觀念小說”也沒有深入的了解和研究，只是在我看來，和小泉八云的《怪談》類作品非常相似。

不同的是，小泉八云是用西方的思想來承載日本的神怪志話，泉鏡花是用日本的思想來解讀映射現(xiàn)實的虛幻怪談。

其實都很接近《聊齋志異》，我至今記得《聊齋》里一則故事，一少婦還未出殯，冒然請求留宿的趕路客們住在她停尸的房間，晚間她輪流吸走他們的陽氣，直到一個人驚醒發(fā)現(xiàn)奪門而出。

這畫面像極了《大話西游》中至尊寶和唐僧夜間發(fā)現(xiàn)黑山老妖一個個吸走趕路商賈們的陽氣。

我不知道周星馳和他的創(chuàng)作人員有沒有看過這則故事，靈感是不是來源于此，但文化的魅力在于，它可以無限傳承和不斷創(chuàng)新，總能用一種似曾相識的奇妙感覺集中你，似乎變了也似乎沒變。

鈴木清順的奇妙之處還在于，他用視覺做了大膽的探索，片中許多日式和西洋的美術風格混合在一起，然而藝術本就是想通的，就像意識流本就借鑒了浮世繪不是嗎？

水缸中浮滿橘子的畫面，好看有經(jīng)典，你很難想象，如此酣暢豪放的情感來自和《其后》同一年代的大正時期。

其后 (1985)

8.5

1985 / 日本 / 劇情 / 森田芳光 / 松田優(yōu)作 藤谷美和子

鏈接：//movie.douban.com/review/12600436/

主要人物五個，作家松，男爵玉，金發(fā)音，殉情奈，以及女仆。 松三次和奈見面，是松在夢境中和奈靈魂的三次直接對話，在這個過程中，松萌生了對奈真相探求的欲望，而奈也選擇了把靈魂交給現(xiàn)實中玉的這位好友。 聽故事的玉實際上明白松在夢境中所見之人是奈，在他看來，女人因為嫉妒而愛，而他因為被愛而自滿。對于奈靈魂上的背叛玉無法忍受。（因此有了玉將松“指人為鳥”：玉打算射殺松，可是經(jīng)過考量之后，玉還是堅持自己對愛情的理解—“愛就是嫉妒，殉情可笑”，于是決定用殉情來測驗松和奈）可是對于醫(yī)院里改變自己容貌的音也失去了容忍和興趣。在玉看來，自己就是松、奈、音、女仆的天，他拋棄了女仆和音，又準備欣賞奈和松的慘劇。（劇中開關門的隱喻對應片尾浮世繪畫片，松的嘔吐是因為看到了門內玉隱藏起來的真實而又殘忍的一面）。 臺階上，松見到了另外一位女人，音，這位為了玉而選擇改變容貌的女人。而在松詢問音之后，音卻問到她和奈誰更好看，這也反映出了音對奈的嫉妒。 女仆通過現(xiàn)實中和松的交流交代了故事整體框架。玉在得知女仆對自己有意后開除了女仆，隨后前往德國深造，在德國和音結婚，回國之后音卻選擇了染發(fā)和遮瞳，她以為把自己同化成日本女人可以更好的吸引玉，可是玉卻自此不再碰她，除了月色下她外貌恢復的時刻。奈因為和音長相相仿，成了玉心中情感的替代品?？呻S著時間發(fā)展，奈發(fā)展這個男人對自己并不上心，最終選擇了和心愛的人殉情。在奈去世很久之后，音也在醫(yī)院去世。 去世后的音和奈的靈魂走到了一起，她們不再互相嫉妒，而是選擇了以重演劇情的方式向作家松控訴。自此之后，電影中音和奈的界限模糊，邏輯混亂。作家松自從橋上與奈和音的靈魂相遇后，心中對奈和音的認識也由“不同的二人”轉變?yōu)椤坝竦钠拮印?，也表達了松同時打開了夢境與現(xiàn)實之門，生與死亡之門，善與惡三道門。（3個找到真相的洞，3種不同的圖形） 首先是夢境與現(xiàn)實之門，神龕相遇，河邊談話。解釋了現(xiàn)實中信的來源——“有人（音）在奈的夢中把這些信寄出去給了松”。 接下來是生與死之門，在面對玉的殉情追問時，電影臺詞和畫面刻意模糊了音和奈的區(qū)別（均為玉妻），接下來松在面對奈的殉情邀請時選擇了退縮，有兩方面原因，一是探究到真相的松對于眼前事的質疑，二是自身對死亡的膽怯。 最后是善與惡之門，在旅館中，松和無政府主義人相遇后，通過對人偶內外在的思考，找到了解決心中疑惑的答案。原來，外在的奈只是表象，內在的音才是本質。以人偶來看，外在是奈，洞中卻是音。奈的殉情，音的傳信相互統(tǒng)一，在松和玉的心中，既有神佛，也有惡鬼。電影最后，松看著自己的靈魂和奈背靠背，而其后神鬼壁畫猙獰，是惡是善，只有松本人知道了。 提幾個有意思的細節(jié)： 一，奈在開頭表示看望將死的朋友音，所用花為墓園摘下來的寄托思念的花，二人之間雖然存在嫉妒關系，但也相互理解，惺惺相惜。 二，開頭姑娘果的描寫中，松向奈講了女人吃姑娘果的故事，在講述過程中，奈作出了兩次嘔吐動作，代表了奈本人將靈魂的兩次上交（殉情時，給松時） 三，女仆對松的興趣除了“前任雇主玉的囑托外”還有一層“幸存者和被拋棄者的集合”的共情在。女仆是玉感情里的幸存者和被拋棄者，她以為松也會是奈感情里的幸存者和被拋棄者，可惜松卻是那個退縮的人，雖然他在最后釋然選擇了跟隨奈的靈魂。 四，賣姑娘果的人=敲詐松的=不要男人靈魂的人

與志奈子三次相遇：第三次，紫色和服，醫(yī)院的花窗玻璃，貓叫，出賣女人的靈魂，花瓣隨著鈴聲噴薄，跳切鏡頭似幻似真，從墓園里取祭拜的花朵去看望朋友。仰角鏡頭拍高大的和服男人和矮小的洋服男人，出現(xiàn)敘事主體劇作家松崎和丈夫玉肋，浮夸的話劇式表演。第一次，粉色和服，“她的手觸碰我的頭發(fā)，如同斬首一般”，“不僅解開了發(fā)髻，還弄濕了”。第二次，黑色和服，披散頭發(fā)，竹子和櫻花花紋的柜子，室內放煙花，浮世繪走廊，但你們都一樣，都隱藏了真身。脫去襪子女人和她的謊言一樣迷人，舞蹈動作，煙花盤子里映出女人的臉。西洋房子里，丈夫穿了和服并獲得仰角鏡頭，敘述者發(fā)現(xiàn)這個房子是第三次相遇的日式房間。給人物中景，第一幕換了伊音重新拍 仿佛一個輪回。確認伊音死后，二人來到舞廳，仆人告知新妻子志奈子是伯爵夫人是個妓女，舊妻子伊音是德國人。販賣靈魂的老婦人和賣鳥的仆人。山崎去金澤尋找志奈子，火車上穿上了洋服。山崎沒有等到志奈子，去找玉肋先生，夜幕中駛出的船上載著兩位夫人，一位金發(fā)碧眼，一位是要找的志奈子。人物特寫快速移鏡頭，詭異非常。玉肋裝扮成金發(fā)藝妓，并展示群舞。中西新舊文化的違和，無政府主義，綁匪與妓女。第四次相遇山崎在櫻花樹下找到志奈子卻也失去她，否認“下次見面，我們像戀人般殉情”是她寫的留言，紅色菩薩翻轉成黑色金剛，次日清晨，說是有人看了她的夢，把信寄給了山崎，水面反射二人同框，新夫人一個拉鏡頭，看到二人的距離仿佛兩岸，筆記上留著圓角方。電影進行到一半，迎來一個高潮，山崎和玉肋去看志奈子殉情，但其實她為了尊嚴而死，之所以想拉著山崎不是因為愛情而是因為出賣了靈魂給他。

人偶制作者的兒子為了能和自己喜歡的女人坐在一起，靈魂出竅，因此死亡。

大段的歌舞劇仿佛觀眾內心的吶喊，玉肋先生和妻子一起死了。山崎的靈魂和自己好好的告別后與志奈子背靠背的坐在了一起。

Seijun Suzuki’s The Taisho Trilogy marks the apex of his artistic idiom, a style that is totally detached from his previous works of B-quality yakuza quickies. The trilogy successfully reinstates Suzuki as a virtuoso filmmaker after he fell out with the studio and went independent.

All three films are set in the Taisho era (1912-1926), and their male protagonists are intellectuals, in ZIGEUNERWEISEN, Aochi (a hunched Fujita, a fellow movie director dips his toes into performing in front of the camera), a professor of German, is gravitated to his former colleague-turned-nomad Nakasago (Harada) and his unconventional relationship with women, which could imperil Aochi’s own passionless marriage; in KAGERO-ZA, a playwright named Shunko Matsuzaki (Matsuda) is involuntarily hooked up with the wife of his patron, but is she a ghost with a grudge? And YUMEJI is a faux-biography treatment of Yumeji Takehisa (1884-1932), a Japanese poet and painter, whose creativity and inspiration gets mired in his abandon of wine, women, and song.

Fairly speaking, Suzuki’s male protagonists are made up by cowards, Aochi is too retiring and prim to acknowledge his feelings for geisha O-Ine (?tani) and her doppelg?nger Sono (?tani again), Nakasago’s ill-treated wife; Shunko is a spooky fool who is none the wiser in the parlous game of temptation and sadomasochism; whereas Yumeji (rocker Sawada) is reduced to a skirt chaser whose raffish charm is lost on audience. Meantime, Suzuki and his scribe Y?z? Tanaka concoct a counterbalance in the person of Yoshio Harada, who appears in all three pictures (although in KAGERO-ZA, his role is a minor one), and basically plays the same character, the fickle, macho, irresponsible type, who is both attracted and repelled by pretty women, a standpoint streams across the trilogy.

Conversely, the petticoat presentation goes to the mystical, women are insubordinate despite of ostensible submission. In ZIGEUNERWEISEN, Aochi’s anachronistically coiffured wife Shuko (Yasuda, who also play three prominent characters in the trilogy and each time, carries off a different facade of the inscrutability of femininity) is (possibly fantasticated as) a bold temptress, an eroticized and emasculating tease; in KAGERO-ZA, Shinako (Yasuda again, peculiarly prim-looking), the phantom-like entity seduces and mesmerizes Shunko, can not be pinned down with any concrete conclusion, like a banshee, she wails for destruction, but she will not go down that path all by herself; in YUMEJI, variety increases, Tomoyo (Mariya) is a widow who entices and bemuses Yumeji, Hikono (Miyazaki) is the girl who loves him unconditionally, Oyo (Hirota), a frisky fangirl, is good for a fling. Thus the question is, which one is the muse he looks for? None would be a surprising answer.

Suzuki’s stream of consciousness fluidity is so adroit in nailing the yawning gender divide, the mutual incomprehensibility between the two sexes, and his imagery, with the gradation from colorfully subdued to profusely garish (culminated in YUMEJI, an chromatic feast almost too ornate by half), is an astonishing achievement, consistently striking through the trilogy: red crabs out of a dead woman’s crotch, solarized effect, porcelain dolls with erotic drawing inside, particolored balloons, just to name a few off the top of my head. They are so felicitous to the background (whether natural or artificial) and idiosyncratically expressive, their lusciousness is nearly ASMR-inducing. Then, the impeccable compositions often articulated with languid movements (beware of off-the-wall mirror images!), the rich scores mingling together traditional ear candies, jazz-infused effusion (Shigeru Umebayashi’s prominent theme strain of YUMEJi would later be plundered by Wong Kar Wai in his seminal mood-setter IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, 2000) and the recurring Zigeunerweisen for sure, Suzuki’s avant-garde style is so profoundly rooted in the Japanese culture and mentality, yet, his conceit is transgressively modern, pace is deliberately slow, performances are highly theatrical while he flouts the boundary of storytelling.

The truth is, in all three films, the meandering plots never reach a point of clarity, they are dismembered along the line (all three features run over 2 hrs), yet, strangely enough, it is not exasperating, since it is Suzuki’s style of expression becomes the cynosure. Each time, audience are tickled to savor the transcendentally arranged scenery, rather than to decipher the signification of words or actions (which are sometimes contradictory and inconsistent). That said, if one watches all three in a row, it is liable to feel somewhat fatigued, since each film doesn’t possess enough personality to distinguish itself from the other two. Which explains why their ratings are descending, although KAGERO-ZA orchestrates a crucial Noh play to apparently explain the crux, how one can appreciate it varies differently.

By my lights, ZIGEUNERWEISEN is the best among the trinity, for being a more ludic and freewheeling vehicle that is almost unperturbed by affective force, and its psychic elements are more pellucid (a young daughter communicates with her dead father through dreams, versus the elusive suicidal pact in KAGERO-ZA), plus the inclusion of a triad of blind mendicant minstrels, chanting ribald ditties while the hierarchy of their sex preference goes through an irreverent modulation. And my final counsel is one picture at a time, The Taisho Trilogy is a rich mine where numen prevails and creativity brims.

referential entries: Suzuki’s PRINCESS RACOON (2005, 6.5/10); Kon Ichikawa’s THE MAKIOKA SISTERS (1983, 8.1/10).

Title: Zigeunerweisen

Original Title: Tsigoineruwaizen

Year: 1980

Country: Japan

Language: Japanese

Genre: Mystery

Director: Seijun Suzuki

Screenwriter: Y?z? Tanaka

based on the novel by Hyakken Uchida

Music: Kaname Karachi

Cinematography: Kazue Nagatsuka

Editing: Nobutake Kamiya

Cast:

Toshiya Fujita

Naoko ?tani

Yoshio Harada

Michiyo Yasuda

Kisako Makishi

Akaji Maro

Kirin Kiki

Isao Tamagawa

Rating: 7.9/10

Title: Kagero-za

Year: 1981

Country: Japan

Language: Japanese

Genre: Fantasy, Thriller, Romance

Director: Seijun Suzuki

Screenwriter: Y?z? Tanaka

based on the novel by Kyoka Izumi

Music: Kaname Karachi

Cinematography: Kazue Nagatsuka

Editing: Akira Suzuki

Cast:

Y?saku Matsuda

Michiyo Yasuda

Katsuo Nakamura

Mariko Kaga

Eriko Kusuda

Ry?tar? ?tomo

Yoshio Harada

Emiko Azuma

Rating: 7.8/10

Title: Yumeji

Year: 1991

Country: Japan

Language: Japanese

Genre: Drama

Director: Seijun Suzuki

Screenwriter: Y?z? Tanaka

Music: Shigeru Umebayashi

Cinematography: Jun’ichi Fujisawa

Editing: Akira Suzuki

Cast:

Kenji Sawada

Tomoko Mariya

Yoshio Harada

Leona Hirota

Masumi Miyazaki

Kazuhiko Hasegawa

Michiyo Yasuda

Akaji Maro

Tamasabur? Band?

Kimiko Yo

Chikako Miyagi

Rating: 7.6/10