• 当前位置:首页 剧情片 半梦半醒的人生

    半梦半醒的人生

    评分:
    0.0很差

    分类:剧情片美国2001

    主演:伊桑·霍克,朱莉·德尔佩,肯·韦伯斯特,威利·维金斯 

    导演:理查德·林克莱特 

    排序

    播放地址

    提示:如无法播放请看其他线路

    猜你喜欢

    • 更新HD

      深湖巨兽国语

    • 更新HD

      手到擒来

    • 更新第08集

      风云际会

    • 更新HD

      黑暗之后

    • 更新HD

      雷德白

    • 更新HD

      骑师

    • 更新HD

      路德传

    • 更新HD

      行至今生

     剧照

    半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.1半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.2半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.3半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.4半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.5半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.6半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.16半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.17半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.18半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.19半梦半醒的人生 剧照 NO.20

    剧情介绍

      青年学生维利•维金斯(Wiley Wiggins 饰)童年时曾从小伙伴那里得到这样一个预言:“梦即命运”。长大后,他在恍恍惚惚间来到了一座陌生的城市。维利走街串巷,经历各种各样的神奇体验,仿佛穿梭于不同的梦中。在此期间,他还遇到了各色人等:从开着船形汽车的司机到大学教授,从性感的金发美女到癫狂的眼睛男,从引火自焚的金发男子再到留着雷鬼头的四人团体……每个人都喋喋不休,谈论着人生、理想和哲学。而维利不发一言,俨然一个极具耐心的聆听者。  本片由导演兼编剧理查德•林克莱特(Richard Linklater)采用DV真人拍摄,并用软件将其“动画化”。导演史蒂文•索德伯格(Steven Soderbergh)亦在片中出现。

     长篇影评

     1 ) 剧本结构的一点脑洞

    电影很有趣
    关于社会的人类的人性的哲学思考的语言流尽管内容平庸,和男主身处其中的梦一样有水的流动质感。
    我想这个电影并不是想借以梦的形式传达严肃的哲学思考,反而是脱出理性思辨的限制后,语言的无意识特性,片中大段大段对话语法正确,风格流畅,但是细纠就会发现其实这些话架空于事实和逻辑上,语言的内容与正在发生的事情之间产生互文,互为所指,就像两滴颜料融合在水中。
    关于这一点,最明显的是男主在电影院看电影的一段。电影的内容是两个人在讨论电影,电影的神圣性瞬间,有点像两个说相声的人,一个逗哏一个捧哏,逗哏的人不断将对话引向电影的叙事性,瞬间的神圣,而在他的语言之下,两个人所构成的电影画面正好成为非常恰当的说明,最后两个人在镜头前表演了这一神圣瞬间,语言与画面融合为一。
    通篇男主遇到的所有人,听到和说出的所有语言,发生的所有事件都具有梦的这一不受理性控制的现实结构之下的超现实性,在每一个微妙不引起注意的地方形成断裂和超越的逻辑结构。
    由此产生的梦境内容虚假与现实性的交互其实也可以类推到电影剧本写作中,即情节超越于故事框架而与写作行为或者拍摄的创作行为本身发生关系。

     2 ) 梦里的每段故事展开都是一个人生

    专门下载了看,开头就很吸引人,可爱的小朋友,天上划过的彗星,也许那时候起就是梦境。之后被各色人的言论轮番轰炸,傻眼,好吧,只需继续跟着看,不同的毫无关联的人物登场,讲述他们对生活对生命对哲理对万物之理的论述,导演都上场了好嘛,一度看观影时间,想什么时候才能结束,或许如果这是我的梦,那真是也会期待早点醒来。
    梦境不都总是多线性交错发展的吗,时间概念模糊,却又一刻不停的叙事演进,突然就掉入另个场景、不同人物交织进来,云云诺诺,由不得你弄明白缘由,即又进入下一个梦谜里。
    对应之前看的《Lucy》,世间真理都在片中了,只需自己看完慢慢理解。
    奇怪,昨晚睡觉,会想到这个电影,也记不清是在睡前还是入梦中时,那些人物的只字片语会作回想。
    这感受未免既奇异又深刻,无可名状的附着感,想逃避又身同感受。
    我会再看一次的。


                                                                       H2 2015.1.2 晚

     3 ) 整理(未完待续)

    船车司机

    So what do you think of my little vessel?

    She's what we call "see-worthy." S-E-E. See with your eyes

    I feel like my transport should be an extension of my personality.

    Voila. And this? This is like my little window to the world, and every minute, it's a different show.

    Now, I may not understand it. I may not even necessarily agree with it.

    But I'll tell you what, I accept it and just sort of glide along. You want to keep things on an even keel I guess is what I'm saying. You want to go with the flow. The sea refuses no river. The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving. Saves on introductions and good-byes. The ride does not require an explanation. Just occupants. That's where you guys come in. It's like you come onto this planet with a crayon box.

    Now, you may get the 8 pack, you may get the 16 pack. But it's all in what you do with the crayons,the colors that you're given. Don't worry about drawing within the lines or coloring outside the lines.

    I say color outside the lines. Color right off the page. Don't box me in. We're in motion to the ocean. We are not landlocked, I'll tell ya that.

    存在主义

    The reason why I refuse to take existentialism as just another French fashion or historical curiosity is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century. I 'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately, the sense of taking responsibility for who you are,the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life. Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair. But I think the truth is just the opposite.

    Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life.

    But one thing that comes out from reading these guys is not a sense of anguish about life so much as a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it. It's like your life is yours to create. I've read the post modernists with some interest, even admiration.

    But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling that something absolutely essential is getting left out. The more that you talk about a person as a social construction or as a confluence of forces or as fragmented or marginalized, what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses. And when Sartre talks about responsibility,he's not talking about something abstract.

    He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about. It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking. Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences. It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting. Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference. It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms. Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example.

    In short, I think the message here is that we should never simply write ourselves off and see ourselves as the victim of various forces. It's always our decision who we are.

    语言、感受与精神交流

    Creation seems to come out of imperfection. It seems to come out of a striving and a frustration. And this is where I think language came from. I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation and have some sort of connection with one another. And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival. Like, you know, "water." We came up with a sound for that. Or, "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came up with a sound for that. But when it gets really interesting, I think,is when we use that same system of symbols to communicate all the abstract and intangible things that we're experiencing. What is, like, frustration? Or what is anger or love? When I say "love,"the sound comes out of my mouth and it hits the other person's ear, travels through this Byzantine conduit in their brain,you know, through their memories of love or lack of love,and they register what I'm saying and say yes, they understand. But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert. They're just symbols. They're dead, you know? And so much of our experience is intangible. So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable. And yet, you know, when we communicate with one another, and we feel that we have connected,and we think that we're understood, I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion.

    And that feeling might be transient, but I think it's what we live for.

    进化

    If we are looking at the highlights of human development, you have to look at the evolution of the organism and then at the development of its interaction with the environment. Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life perceived through the hominid coming to the evolution of mankind. Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon man. Now, interestingly, what you are looking at here are three strings: biological, anthropological, development of the cities, cultures and cultural, which is human expression. Now, what you are seen here is the evolution of populations, not so much the evolution of individuals. And in addition, if you look at the time scales that's involved here two billion years for life, six million years for the hominid, 100,000 years for mankind as we know it, you're beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm. And then when you get to agricultural, when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution, you're looking at 10,000 years, 400 years, 150 years. You're seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time. What that means is that as we go through the new evolution, it's gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself within our lifetime, within this generation. The new evolution stems from information, and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog.

    The digital is artificial intelligence.

    The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism. And you knit the two together with neurobiology. Before on the old evolutionary paradigm, one would die and the other would grow and dominate. But under the new paradigm, they would exist as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping. Okay, independent from the external. And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process, emanating from the needs and the desires of the individual, and not an external process, a passive process where the individual is just at the whim of the collective. So, you produce a neo-human with a new individuality and a new consciousness. But that's only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle, because as the next cycle proceeds, the input is now this new intelligence. As intelligence piles on intelligence, as ability piles on ability, the speed changes. Until what? Until you reach a crescendo in a way could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human, human and neo-human potential. It could be something totally different. It could be the amplification of the individual,the multiplication of individual existences.

    Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space. And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution, manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive. That's the interesting part. The old evolution is cold. It's sterile. It's efficient, okay? And its manifestations are those social adaptations. You're talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay? Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis. These would be subject to de-evolution. The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty, of justice, of freedom. These will be the manifestations of the new evolution. That is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice.

    自燃者

    A self-destructive man feels completely alienated, utterly alone. He's an outsider to the human community. He thinks to himself, "I must be insane." What he fails to realize is that society has, just as he does, a vested interest in considerable losses and catastrophes. These wars, famines, floods and quakes meet well-defined needs. Man wants chaos. In fact, he's gotta have it. Depression, strife, riots, murder, all this dread. We're irresistibly drawn to that almost orgiastic state created out of death and destruction. It's in all of us. We revel in it. Sure, the media tries to put a sad face on these things, painting them up as great human tragedies. But we all know the function of the media has never been to eliminate the evils of the world, no. Their job is to persuade us to accept those evils and get used to living with them. The powers that be want us to be passive observers. Hey, you got a match? And they haven't given us any other options outside the occasional, purely symbolic, participatory act of voting. You want the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left? I feel that the time has come to project my own inadequacies and dissatisfactions into the sociopolitical and scientific schemes.

    Let my own lack of a voice be heard.

    死后的6-12min

    I keep thinking about something you said. - Something I said?

    - Yeah. About how you often feel like you're observing your life from the perspective of an old woman about to die. - You remember that?

    - Yeah. I still feel that way sometimes. Like I'm looking back on my life. Like my waking life is her memories.

    Exactly. I heard that Tim Leary said as he was dying that he was looking forward to the moment when his body was dead, but his brain was still alive. They say that there's still 6 to 12 minutes of brain activity after everything is shut down. And a second of dream consciousness, right, well, that's infinitely longer than a waking second. - You know what I'm saying?

    - Oh, yeah, definitely. For example, I wake up and it's 10:12, and then I go back to sleep and I have those long, intricate, beautiful dreams that seem to last for hours, and then I wake up and it's 10:13. Exactly. So then 6 to 1 2 minutes of brain activity,I mean, that could be your whole life. I mean, you are that woman looking back over everything. Okay, so what if I am? Then what would you be in all that? Whatever I am right now. I mean, yeah, maybe I only exist in your mind. I'm still just as real as anything else. Yeah.

    灵魂转世

    - I've been thinking also about something you said.

    - What's that?

    Just about reincarnation and where all the new souls come from over time. Everybody always say that they've been the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Alexander the Great.

    I always want to tell them they were probably some dumb fuck like everybody else. I mean, it's impossible. Think about it. The world population has doubled in the past 40 years, right? - So if you really believe in that ego thing of one eternal soul, then you only have a 50% chance of your soul being over 40. And for it to be over 150 years old, then it's only one out of six. So what are you saying then? Reincarnation doesn't exist or that we're all young souls like where half of us are first-round humans? No, no. What I'm trying to say is that somehow I believe reincarnation is just a poetic expression of what collective memory really is. There was this article by this biochemist that I read not long ago, and he was talking about how when a member of a species is born, it has a billion years of memory to draw on. And this is where we inherit our instincts. I like that. It's like there's, um, this whole telepathic thing going on that we are all a part of, whether we are conscious of it or not.

    That would explain why there's all these, you know, seemingly spontaneous, worldwide, innovative leaps in science, in the arts.

    You know, like the same results poppin' up everywhere independent of each other. Some guy on a computer, he figures something out, and then almost simultaneously, a bunch of other people all over the world figure out the same thing.

    They did this study. They isolated a group of people over time, and they monitored their abilities at crossword puzzles in relation to the general population. And then they secretly gave them a day-old crossword, one that had already been answered by thousands of other people. Their scores went up dramatically, like 20 percent. So it's like once the answers are out there, you know, people can pick up on them. It's like we're all telepathically sharing our experiences.

    囚犯

    I'll get you motherfuckers if it's the last thing I do.

    Oh, you're gonna pay for what you did to me. For every second I spend in this hellhole, I'll see you spend a year in living hell!

    Oh, you fucks are gonna beg me to let you die. No, no, not yet. I want you cocksuckers to suffer. Oh, I'll fix your fuckin' asses, all right. Maybe a long needle in your eardrum. A hot cigar in your eye. Nothing fancy. Some molten lead up the ass.

    Ooh! Or better still, some of that old Apache shit. Cut your eyelids off. Yeah. I'll just listen to you fucks screaming.

    Oh, what sweet music that'll be. Yeah. We'll do it in the hospital. With doctors and nurses so you pricks don't die on me too quick. You know the best part? The best part is you dick-smoking faggots will have your eyelids cut off,so you'll have to watch me do it to you, yeah. You'll see me bring that cigar closer and closer to your wide-open eyeball till you're almost out of your mind. But not quite,cause I want it to last a long, long time. I want you to know that it's me, that I'm the one that's doing it to you.Me! And that sissy psychiatrist?What unmitigated ignorance! That old drunken fart of a judge!What a pompous ass! Judge not, lest ye be judged! All of you pukes are gonna die the day I get out of this shithole! I guarantee you'll regret the day you met me!

    科学之后,如何自由

    In a way, in our contemporary world view, it's easy to think that science has come to take the place of God. But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever. Take the problem of free will. This problem's been around for a long time, since before Aristotle in 350 B.C. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, these guys all worried about how we can be free if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do. Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws, and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world. Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy, they enable incredible technological achievements. But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too. We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules. We're mostly water, and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to basic physical laws. So it starts to look like whether it's God setting things up in advance and knowing everything you're gonna do, or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything. There's not a lot of room left for freedom. So now you might be tempted to just ignore the question, ignore the mystery of free will. Say, "Oh, well, it's just an historical anecdote. It's sophomoric. It's a question with no answer. Just forget about it." But the question keeps staring you right in the face. You think about individuality, for example, who you are. Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make. Or take responsibility. You can only be held responsible, you can only be found guilty or admired or respected for things you did of your own free will. The question keeps coming back, and we don't really have a solution to it. It starts to look like all your decisions are really just a charade. Think about how it happens. There's some electrical activity in your brain. Your neurons fire. They send a signal down into your nervous system. It passes along down into your muscle fibers. They twitch. You might, say, reach out your arm. Looks like it's a free action on your part,but every one of those- every part of that process is actually governed by physical law:chemical laws, electrical laws and so on. So now it just looks like the Big Bang set up the initial conditions, and the whole rest of our history, the whole rest of human history and even before, is really just sort of the playing out of subatomic particles, according to these basic fundamental physical laws. We think we are special. We think we have some kind of special dignity,but that now comes under threat. I mean, that's really challenged by this picture. So you might be saying, "Well, wait a minute. What about quantum mechanics? "I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that. "It's really a probabilistic theory. There's room. It's loose. It's not deterministic." And that's gonna enable us to understand free will. But if you look at the details, it's not really gonna help, because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is apparently a bit random.

    They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that it's unpredictable, and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework. But is that gonna help with freedom? Should our freedom just be a matter of probabilities, just some random swerving in a chaotic system? That just seems like it's worse. I'd rather be a gear in a big deterministic, physical machine than just some random swerving. So we can't just ignore the problem.

    We have to find room in our contemporary world view for persons,with all that that it entails; not just bodies, but persons. And that means trying to solve the problem of freedom, finding room for choice and responsibility and trying to understand individuality.

    反抗者

    You can't fight city hall, death and taxes. Don't talk about politics or religion. This is all the equivalent of enemy propaganda rolling across the picket line. " Lay down, G.I. Lay down, G.I." We saw it all through the 20th Century. And now in the 21st Century, it's time to stand up and realize that we should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze. We should not submit to dehumanization. I don't know about you, but I'm concerned with what's happening in this world. I'm concerned with the structure. I'm concerned with the systems of control, those that control my life and those that seek to control it even more! I want freedom! That's what I want! And that's what you should want! It's up to each and every one of us to turn loose and just shovel the greed, the hatred, the envy and, yes, the insecurities, because that is the central mode of control-- make us feel pathetic, small, so we'll willingly give up our sovereignty, our liberty, our destiny. We have got to realize that we're being conditioned on a mass scale. Start challenging this corporate slave state! The 21st Century is gonna be a new century, not the century of slavery, not the century of lies and issues of no significance and classism and statism and all the rest of the modes of control! It's gonna be the age of humankind standing up for something pure and something right!

    What a bunch of garbage-- liberal Democrat, conservative Republican. It's all there to control you. Two sides of the same coin. Two management teams bidding for control! The C.E.O. job of Slavery, Incorporated! The truth is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of lies! I'm sick of it, and I'm not gonna take a bite out of it! Do you got me? Resistance is not futile. We're gonna win this thing. Humankind is too good! We're not a bunch of underachievers! We're gonna stand up and we're gonna be human beings! We're gonna get fired up about the real things, the things that matter: creativity and the dynamic human spirit that refuses to submit! Well, that's it! That's all I got to say! It's in your court.

    The quest is to be liberated from the negative, which is really our own will to nothingness. And once having said yes to the instant, the affirmation is contagious. It bursts into a chain of affirmations that knows no limit. To say yes to one instant is to say yes to all of existence.

    mind

    The main character is what you might call "the mind."

    It's mastery, it's capacity to represent.

    Throughout history, attempts have been made to contain those experiences which happen at the edge of the limit where the mind is vulnerable.

    But I think we are in a very significant moment in history.

    Those moments, those what you might call liminal, limit, frontier, edge zone experiences are actually now becoming the norm.

    These multiplicities and distinctions and differences that have given great difficulty to the old mind are actually through entering into their very essence, tasting and feeling their uniqueness.

    One might make a breakthrough to that common something that holds them together.

    And so the main character is, to this new mind, greater, greater mind.

    A mind that yet is to be.

    And when we are obviously entered into that mode, you can see a radical subjectivity, radical attunement to individuality, uniqueness to that which the mind is, opens itself to a vast objectivity.

    So the story is the story of the cosmos now.

    The moment is not just a passing, empty nothing yet.

    And this is in the way in which these secret passages happen.

    Yes, it's empty with such fullness that the great moment, the great life of the universe is pulsating in it.

    And each one, each object, each place, each act leaves a mark.

    And that story is singular.

    But, in fact, it's story after story.

    Time just dissolves into quick-moving particles that are swirling away.

    Either I'm moving fast or time is. Never both simultaneously.

    It's such a strange paradox. I mean, while, technically, I 'm closer to the end of my life than I've ever been, I actually feel more than ever that I have all the time in the world. When I was younger, there was a desperation, a desire for certainty, like there was an end to the path, and I had to get there. I know what you mean because I can remember thinking, "Oh, someday, like in my mid-thirties maybe, everything's going to just somehow jell and settle, just end." It was like there was this plateau, and it was waiting for me, and I was climbing up it, and when I got to the top, all growth and change would stop. Even exhilaration. But that hasn't happened like that, thank goodness. I think that what we don't take into account when we are young is our endless curiosity. That's what's so great about being human. - You know that thing Benedict Anderson says about identity?

    - No. Well, he's talking about like, say, a baby picture. So you pick up this picture, this two-dimensional image, and you say, "That's me." Well, to connect this baby in this weird little image with yourself living and breathing in the present, you have to make up a story like, "This was me when I was a year old, and later I had long hair, and then we moved to Riverdale, and now here I am." So it takes a story that's actually a fiction to make you and the baby in the picture identical to create your identity. And the funny thing is, our cells are completely regenerating every seven years. We've already become completely different people several times over,and yet we always remain quintessentially ourselves.

    Our critique began as all critiques begin:with doubt.

    Doubt became our narrative.

    Ours was a quest for a new story, our own.

    And we grasp toward this new history driven by the suspicion that ordinary language couldn't tell it.

    Our past appeared frozen in the distance, and our every gesture and accent signified the negation of the old world and the reach for a new one.

    The way we lived created a new situation, one of exuberance and friendship, that of a subversive microsociety in the heart of a society which ignored it.

    Art was not the goal but the occasion and the method for locating our specific rhythm and buried possibilities of our time.

    The discovery of a true communication was what it was about, or at least the quest for such a communication.

    The adventure of finding it and losing it.

    We the unappeased, the unaccepting continued looking, filling in the silences with our own wishes, fears and fantasies.

    Driven forward by the fact that no matter how empty the world seemed, no matter how degraded and used up the world appeared to us, we knew that anything was still possible.

    And, given the right circumstances, a new world was just as likely as an old one.

    There are two kinds of sufferers in this world: those who suffer from a lack of life and those who suffer from an overabundance of life.

    I've always found myself in the second category.

    When you come to think of it, almost all human behavior and activity is not essentially any different from animal behavior.

    The most advanced technologies and craftsmanship bring us, at best, up to the super-chimpanzee level.

    Actually, the gap between, say, Plato or Nietzsche and the average human is greater than the gap between that chimpanzee and the average human.

    The realm of the real spirit, the true artist, the saint, the philosopher, is rarely achieved.

    Why so few?

    Why is world history and evolution not stories of progress, but rather this endless and futile addition of zeroes?

    No greater values have developed.

    Hell, the Greeks 3,000 years ago were just as advanced as we are.

    So what are these barriers that keep people from reaching anywhere near their real potential?

    The answer to that can be found in another question, and that's this: Which is the most universal human characteristic - fear or laziness?

    What are you writing?

    A novel.

    What's the story?

    There's no story.

    It's just people, gestures, moments, bits of rapture, fleeting emotions.

     4 ) If you see a light switch nearby,see if it works.

    If you see a light switch nearby,see if it works.You can't do that in a lucid dream.

    影片的始终,都没有出现实拍的场景,彻头彻尾的梦境。
    看这部影片的观众,就像是附在主人公灵魂上的跳蚤,跟着他旅行。不知道这段旅行的起点是哪,也不知道何时会结束。一切都随着他的潜意识,有时候顺延,时而跳跃。
    梦境,就该是这样的吧。像是串联一些无厘头的故事,自己捏造一些人物,看上去活生生的面容清晰,但当仔细想认出他们脸庞的时候却觉得他们的五官会变化流动无法捕捉,越来越模糊。
    导演高明地将实拍的场景动画处理化,于是人物和周遭的事物都在晃动游离,失去重心的世界也许是这样的。手持DV拍摄出的抖动效果恰到好处地安在了这里。
    会不会我们做梦的时候我们其实都在月球上呢?摆脱了肉体的重量,21克的物质很轻易地加速到超越光速,于是往返于各个星球,各个时代....而造成梦境的一片混乱。
    才知道Julie Delpy在除了《Before sunrise》和《Before sunset》那两部影片中还在这里出现了,尽管动画人物的身份,辨别出她还是比较容易的,影片中的类似废话的哲理独白很多,她的一段话挺有趣也挺引人深思,这似乎从日出之前那部就是开始困扰这个导演的问题:
    About reincarnation,and where all the new souls come from over time.Everybody always says they're the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Alexander the Great.You know they were a dumb fuck like everyone else.I mean,it's impossible.The world population has doubled in the past 40 years.So if you believe in that ego thing of one eternal soul you have 50% chance of your soul being over 40.For it to be over 150 years old,it's only one out of six......I believe reincanation is a poetic expression of what collective memory is....I read an article by a biochemist not long ago.He said when a member of a species is born it has a billion years of memory to draw on.This is where we inherit our instincts.

    影片结束时,一段旅行也结束,一场共鸣也结束,我下意识地按了两下台灯的开关,确定了自己的处境。

     5 ) Nice try

    非常粗糙的画风,非常枯燥的内容。这实在是我没有料到的。
            尽管是英语片,但却有着小众电影必备的贯穿始终的絮叨——没有联系的出场人物,没有前后文,没有基本的寒暄玩笑,就是这样一个个地直接对着主人公开讲。演讲内容多半是关于人生意义、梦境原理、伦理设想、哲学思辨……我开始还企图要跟上讲话者的思路,努力要弄清楚一个人和另一个讲话内容的主旨与联系。后来就彻底放弃了。我基本上就是那个不断醒来,发现自己在另一个梦境里的主角,能做的就只有面无表情地四处游走,面无表情地装作在听别人宣讲。
            我后来才弄明白为什么这个主题要用动画手法来表现——它明明是拍下真人之后,电脑特效作出来的。因为那些不断抖动的镜头,不断纷纷叉叉的线条,才能显出梦境的意味:不确定,不确定,不确定。
            片子基本上是在挑战普通人的忍耐力,以及“到底你可以坚持到几分钟的时候才睡着”这个实验命题。但是毋庸置疑的是,那些人的絮叨其实都充满思想的力量,可惜是画面,画面之于文字,恰恰就短缺在这个引导别人抽象思考的部分。
            我只是想对编导们说:Nice try。

     6 ) 内时间意识中的情节

    为什么说是“内时间意识”呢?其实这个词放在这里是很不妥当的,深究起来,我就变成现象学的罪人和玩弄者了。
    但是在《waking life》中确实不存在——即使存在,也被巧妙地掩盖住了——正常的时间。主角一直在徘徊、画面也一直在徘徊,观众被诱进语言织体的陷阱:只有语言,庞大的且看似杂乱无章的大段独白才是观众有可能把握的——纵然杂乱,却未脱离语法,而在情节和画面中,我们甚至可以说,整部影片都是支离破碎的臆想。这是导演的恶意抑或目的?
    或许导演同时希望观众放弃情节,把全部精力投入庄之蝶的禅机。他根本没这个必要,愿意花时间两遍三遍看片子的人根本不会在意什么狗屁情节,这种人都是偏执狂,否则他们宁愿找一张tango唱片听一下算了(顺便说一句,背景音乐恰如其分地选择了能够凸现疲惫、紧张、忧虑和努力把握一丝理性的情绪的tango,太棒了)。

     7 ) 离开把手,我就会飘起来

           有些道理就是很难传播——因为人们只传递自己认同的东西。有些道理就是不大可能被大多数人认同,于是,即便它再有道理,再怎么有用,也不是很容易传播。
           所以这个电影也被埋没,因为它涉及的观点太多太泛乱,每个人滔滔不绝,像拿着一大桶水对着男主角泼洒着他们的论点,但论据却很少,这样的谈话很难让局外的人产生认同感。大多数人只不过看着整部电影里多数是不太感兴趣的对白,看完就完全忘记,继续他们半梦半醒的人生。
           但是抛开观点不算,电影的表现手法真的打动了我。导演的这个想法是开创性的,真希望会有新的作品能向这个电影致敬,这个手法真的值得再用。

     短评

    我不明白为什么要选择CG动画的方式来处理这个题材,在我看来,片中大多数场景和画面甚至可以忽略掉,光听一下那些谈话就足够了。也许读读剧本更有感觉,不觉得画面起到了很大作用。这个题材用真人电影或者真人动画可能会更有感觉,那样才有超现实主义的味道。本片我猜是前期真人拍摄然后再CG重新绘图。

    3分钟前
    • 私享史
    • 较差

    I keeps waking up while watching this

    5分钟前
    • 冥想高潮
    • 还行

    竟能听懂全部人所说的,并且还有机会嘲笑其中至少三分之一.这些并非极深的哲理,使用了演讲的方式来料理,虽然有时也跟不上他们的节奏,但其中深意却已为我们所理解:就是观念而已.关于自由意志、灵魂转生、量子理论、社会结构和进化论等的观点无触动,倒是自焚的人、开船车的人和监狱诅咒最得我心

    7分钟前
    • 文泽尔
    • 力荐

    感觉这是林克莱特的精神呓语,生活中总是会有各种困惑、各种稀奇古怪的想法,难得的是林克莱特将它具象出来了。信息量好大,每次低头咬一口西瓜都错过很多内容---足见话唠程度---

    10分钟前
    • 帕拉
    • 推荐

    大型新媒介云吸毒,花60块飞99分钟,上天入地,叨念人生。

    11分钟前
    • shininglove
    • 推荐

    我不该在困乏的时候看它……

    14分钟前
    • 不流ᝰ
    • 力荐

    真人拍摄,动画呈现,形式非常独特;哲学电影,梦的解析,内容非常深刻。

    15分钟前
    • 芦哲峰
    • 力荐

    喝杯浓茶,打起精神,继续再看。年度奇片,哲学教材 !7.3

    20分钟前
    • 巴喆
    • 推荐

    林克莱特你真会玩儿,这你都能拍。基本上可以当成初级哲学的动画解说,人存在吗,现实存在吗,你怎么知道自己不是身处梦中。跟上片中人物的思考速度应该不是难事,那样就会发现我们以为理所当然的东西其实都很难站得住脚。

    23分钟前
    • 鬼腳七
    • 推荐

    按车轨边青年的说法,lucid dream大概不算梦?但是像我现在,就已经很少做那些没法控制,完全沉溺的梦了。通常梦开始没多久就会被意识到是在做梦,直接导演剧情,甚至都不用学主人公找个开关来验证。按照弗洛伊德引用Vaschide的说法,大概就是,想睡觉的愿望被其他愿望(比如说观察和享受自己的梦境)取代, wish-fulfilment以另一种方式进行。片里萨满是把lucid dream看作珍惜想象力的一种方式,但应该还有一方面是恐惧吧,恐惧失去控制,被卷入无法左右的梦域和情绪(Melanie Klein也有类似观点)。另外一点,主角穿越各种场景的floating是弗洛伊德的典型梦境之一,除了性行为暗示(erections or emission),还是一种退到童稚状态的,无干扰的愉悦感

    27分钟前
    • coie
    • 推荐

    爱在系列隐藏的第1.5部。我也好想找人每天跟我神侃一些有的没的不着边际的话题啊,什么文学艺术科学哲学,大家每天一起瞎逼逼多开心啊,再不然每天聊八卦也好啊,昨天文章马伊琍,今天奶茶刘强东,明天单位狗男女。(ps.大头,这对你来说就是不知所云的话痨电影,请勿观赏)

    29分钟前
    • 了不起的花轮君
    • 力荐

    大概世界上最沉闷的动画片,除了梦中梦的结构,剩下的全是“哲学课式”的对话。但是这片子倒是让我想起了刚上大学那会儿的情形,就像片中那个主人公一样,我每天都几乎一言不发地听别人讲一大堆理论(一套一套的,听起来都很有道理,但是仔细想一下,又好像什么也没讲),然后在夜里做各种奇怪的梦。

    30分钟前
    • 远子
    • 推荐

    每晚梦境灾难大片奇异考夫曼,一醒来过的跟劣质自我中心白水欧洲片似的,情愿活在关不掉开关的世界里。

    35分钟前
    • 推荐

    说实话,最初我对这部电影没太多好感,虽然这种真人拍摄转制动画的方式我一直挺喜欢的,但一轮接一轮的梦,一轮接一轮的大道理,就算再有意思的话题也会让人心生烦闷的。但到了最后,还是打脸喜欢上了,尤其是PKD一出来,想表达的主题突然立体了,也好理解了,亲切了。

    40分钟前
    • 瓜。相信这个世界很变态。
    • 推荐

    “也许我们对时间的感知只是一种幻觉。事实上,我们的整个人生和历史只是一个永恒的瞬间”。又是Richard Linklater的标志性哲理对话性独立电影。我发觉在我看过的这三部他作品里面,他在国内最负盛名的那部《Before Sunrise》是最差的。也许是《Slacker》和《Waking Life》的对白太过深奥,一般人看不懂吧。这个人已经开始逐渐变成我最饭的独立导演。

    42分钟前
    • 思阳
    • 力荐

    扯淡的路上,林克莱特走得很远

    47分钟前
    • 桃桃林林
    • 还行

    探戈搭配对话,片头说的演奏上slightly detached, a little wavy, slightly out of tune也正是影像的质地。电影用frame启发观众发现holy moment, boat司机说的那番话挺阿巴斯的,无论是从电影还是人生的角度。无尽的梦是死亡,还是,无梦的睡眠是死亡?片中的梦境神神叨叨得令人羡慕,个人经验是梦中一般不这么话痨,也不会在梦里看到自己,train yourself to recognize a dream还是挺难的

    48分钟前
    • 吴邪
    • 推荐

    非常特别的片子,将拍好的真人场景再由动画制作室改成动画。全片充满荒诞又不乏现实感的诗意,以及大量关于梦与现实、生活、存在主义、死亡、自由意志、社会规则、电影与文学、集体记忆的对白。虽然中间差点也“半梦半醒”了,但还是要强力推荐!爱思考人生、钟爱哲学的友友必看!

    52分钟前
    • 冰红深蓝
    • 力荐

    大概根据实际影像处理的动画,看不下去

    55分钟前
    • boks
    • 还行

    很多地方看不懂,所以就不便評分了。總的來說,這是一部非常非常深奧,可是又很睿智的電影,探究人生、我、夢還有生活等等。問題是,我們有必要對自己的人生進行如此的嚴肅的審視嗎?也許。只是我覺得每個人對自己的人生都有不同方式的挖掘,這是其中一個方向而已。我純粹是沖著J和C的結局而來。

    58分钟前
    • StevenTong
    • 还行

    Copyright © 2023 All Rights Reserved

    电影

    电视剧

    动漫

    综艺