璀璨人生DVD版

连日来忙着观看早晚的美国网球赛，电影看得少了。下载了一部意大利2003年拍摄的电影《灿烂人生》，发现它竟然长达6个小时！一天看一点，拖了近一周才看完了它。

是部好电影！ 在豆瓣上评分达到9.4，有54，883人评价；IMDB评分也高达8.5，21,341人次投票。两个网站的TOP250 排名中都没有算上它，估计是因为其超长的形态。当年它参加了戛纳电影节的“一种关注”栏目，是分为上、下两部放映，每部3小时，后获该项目大奖；随后在影院公映，但主要还是在电视上以4集的mini系列剧形式公映，每集1.5小时。

影评人“亵渎电影”的评语概括了影片内容：“6个小时，1个家庭，44年的时间跨度，一晚上看完一群人的一生，太完美了！★★★★★”（2012-10-27）

我对对此片感兴趣，是因为它写的是和我同龄一代人的人生，即上世纪40、50年代出生的一代。影片从上世纪60年代写到本世纪初，主角们开始时还都是些未毕业的大学生，相似于我们国家“文革”前的“老三届”(它一般指当时尚未毕业的66、67、68届初、高中学生，其实也应该包括当时还没完成学业的各届在校大学生，他们也一样地卷入了失学、革命、下乡的历史浪潮之中）。电影中展现了60-70年代席卷世界、欧洲的“红色风暴”。以马特奥和尼古拉两兄弟为首的一家人，在漫长的40年中，经历了意大利战后最混乱的时期，大洪水，红色学潮，工人暴动，足球世界杯小组被淘汰到夺冠，黑手党横行，菲亚特工厂大裁员，红色旅恐怖组织的兴起，等等历史事件，兄弟姐妹、父母、爱人、孩子的命运都被纠缠了进去。编导以青春时期对理想、革命、爱情的选择为主题，运用“性格决定命运”的法则，展现了一幅耐人回味与共鸣的社会人生画卷。

影片拍摄于本世纪初，还是使用的胶片拍摄（查IMDB上，底片用的是Super16mm,拷贝用的35mm胶片），制作精良；遵循了电视电影“小屏幕”的要求，特写、近景多，人物肖像拍得特别成功。当然，几个意大利演员的出色外部资质及表演也极为添彩。

我之所以没有打满分，是感觉用了如此巨大的篇幅，编导的立意还是狭小了一些，对涉及到的社会思想和政治问题的涉入过于浅薄，影响了作品的“历史史诗”分量。

不过，我还是向没看过的人推荐该片；特别是我们这些出生于40、50年代的人们应该去观看它。在我们已经进入耄耋之年时去回忆往事，你会发现它“并不如烟”，而是厚重又丰富，非常值得去回首与反思！

至今看过的最长的一部电影：六个小时。一直存在电脑里，不知看了几遍。

一部关于一个家庭和一个时代的电影。每次看，都会想到同样小人物与大时代同步叙述的《阿甘正传》。但较于阿甘是乐观主义的一个人喜剧，《灿烂人生》是更写实地讲述了一个家庭的悲欢：气势更恢宏。

影片的最大感触：性格决定人生。

整部影片看下来，就能知道这是一个团结而相爱的家庭。 家庭成员之间彼此的爱是不偏不倚的。一样的家庭条件，一样的父母兄妹， Nicola和Matteo同样的善良、正直而富有同情心的，但是他们读取爱和表达爱的方式很不一样。这就是兄弟俩的各自性格。 （1）父母的争吵，乐观的Nicola看来是爱的体现，而敏感悲伤的Matteo却体会出“我以后不会结婚”（与最小妹妹的对话）。 （2）母亲忙于教学工作，而Nicola只是心怀遗憾地表示：“很羡慕那些被妈妈带着去图书馆、博物馆的学生”，妈妈解释“那是由于那些孩子太可怜了，缺少父母的关爱”，他也只是玩笑似地调侃道“所以，你也和其他父母一样（忽略自己的孩子）。” 而Matteo则是母亲未尽母职而心怀疏远（多年工作后，调回家所在的罗马，也宁愿在外租房，也不回家，甚至都不告诉家里人）。 （3）对于长姐，Nicola遇到事情，即使知道她出于自身职务，不能全部坦白，也会想着和她商量，听取她的专业意见。 Matteo则认为长姐，总是跟个“二妈”和法官一样，对他的行为出于说教和指责。 整个家中，Matteo真正愿意沟通的只是Nicola，而这恰是因为Nicola自身的讨喜性格。Nicola善良而坚韧，乐观而随和，并且尊重他人的人生选择。 他认为“所谓自由，便是每个人有权用自己喜欢的方式去度过自己的人生。” 所以，他表达爱的方式是理解，并成为一位帮助病患与弱者的医生。 Matteo， 他的内心是诗人般敏感而悲伤的，他对弱者有着感同身受的同情。 但，他对爱和善有着近乎完美的执着。当别人有悖于他心中的这些认知，他是无法释怀和原谅的。他表达爱的方式是苛求，战士般勇敢而激烈的与“恶” 作斗争。 不由地反思：我们应当如何去爱？ 如何去表达爱？ 爱与恨，美好与邪恶，应该是此消彼长的吧。 所以，以理解和增长爱和美好的方式去爱，会不会 比痛恨和消灭丑陋和邪恶的方式，更加有力量？或者说，成为帮助治愈的医者，会不会比消灭邪恶的战士，来的没那么痛苦呢？会吗？ 影片的伟大之处，就在于，好像：每个角色的故事走向，完全取决于他们自身的性格所在。而非编剧和导演决定。 六个小时，我居然看完一遍还不够！ 第一遍，对Nicola的善良、随和、坚韧和智慧的为人处世所迷倒。 然后，再次回味，却深深的陷入到对Matteo的无限心疼当中。 无法释怀，Matteo与Giorgia之间.....的爱。 1966年夏天！ 那个倾盆的雨夜， Matteo拾起地板上署名Giorgia的笔记簿，几页绘画后，是一页被涂抹掉的文字， 但开头“你好，Matteo”却依然可见。 那个小食店的点唱机前， Matteo按Giorgia的要求点了“A Chi”（Who Can 谁能）这首歌：“如果不是你，我还能对谁微笑！如果你不在这，我还能对谁微笑”， 歌词和Giorgia无比坚定地看着Matteo眼神， 已经表白一切！（这一幕，我真的无比喜欢，以至于后来无数次回味）

“还记得那个我们都还年轻的夏天吗？你是怎么了？ 我是怎么了？”这是1977年Nicola找到Giorgia之后， Matteo见她，哽咽、绝望般自言的感慨！ 用Nicola的话回答“我想当年你爱上她了” 可是， 真的只是当年吗？ Matteo， 他与恶的抗争是那样尖锐而激烈的。而，他的爱，虽不动声色， 却也用尽全力！ 火车上，睡着的Matteo和Giorgia并肩而靠， Nicola看着他们，如欣赏美景般心满意足地笑着。 Matteo醒来，对Nicola的笑表示疑惑， Nicola对他打着手势道：“你和她真是般配的一对”，然后，出现了电影里Matteo唯一一次羞涩的微笑~~~（多么美好！！！） 忍不住会想：如果那个夏天， 警察没有带走Giorgia 会有不同吗？仿佛，青春就停留在那个夏天了。 最美好的青春~~~

真的般配~~~

另外， Matteo的笑容，真的真的太好看了， 只是太少......

It was a six hours long Italian movie. It was shown in a small theatre in SF’s Richmond district, very close to Pacific Ocean. I knew nothing about the movie, besides its length, before went in the theatre. I went because Gui thought it was worthy. I always trust Gui’s taste in movies. We were well-prepared, carried a small shopping bag full of various healthy soft drinks: chocolate soy milk, mango juice, and water, cookies, and chocolate, plus a small pillow for Gui’s back. It felt like a school field trip. Since the movie was shown in two parts with half an hour intermission in between. We only bought tickets to see the first half first. Left our option open in case we wanted to give up on the 2nd half. We ended up watching the movie in full. Before the second half started, we walked up and down the quiet street bathed in brilliant afternoon sunshine. The ocean is visible not far off, at the end of the street. Accidentally discovered a lovely coffee shop, too. (The coffee shop was named ‘Simple Pleasure Cafe’, with loads of old sofa in all shapes and sizes, plus a piano!) I liked the movie. Couldn’t get my mind clear of the story well into the evening. A few words from the ever so eloquent Anthony Lane: "This is how people find love in “The Best of Youth.” They meet in a small kitchen, where one of them calls the other a klutz for not being able to work the coffee machine. They talk about college, and exchange a look. That’s it. And this is how people make out: they fumble warmly in a car, beside a phone booth, with no music surging to their aid; unless you count the Roman rain outside, with its soft percussive beat. "All of which confirms that we are in the midst of verifiable human conduct. “The Best of Youth” runs, though never dawdles, for an easy six hours, with barely a false note. Directed by Marco Tullio Giordana, it was commissioned by Italian television; here it has already shown at Film Forum, in two three-hour chunks, and will play at Cinema Village before heading elsewhere across the country. There is absolutely no reason not to sacrifice a couple of your evenings for the sake of the Caratis, the lightly bound clan at the heart of Giordana’s epic; not, I should add, because they will offer you a pulsing escape from your own family life but precisely because the rhythm of their pleasures and scarrings will, over time, come to seem like a consoling echo of your own. When a movie starts, as this one does, with a dad interrupting his son’s homework and asking if he can help move a TV set, you know you are on home ground. " Warning, if you plan to watch the movie. Stop reading now. Don’t want to spoil your experiences. The story confirmed my conclusion about suicides once again, which was that suicide was never a premeditate decision. It was triggered by a spur of the moment weakness, loneliness. Maybe it was piled up by all kinds of depression and bottled up feelings left unexpressed. But that moment was never pre-determined. So there were many “what-ifs”. And all the “whatifs” might have would have prevented the tragedy. If someone they love would call at that moment, if someone they cared about happened to be with them, happened to show up, even if some stranger suddenly interfered at that moment, all would have turned out okay. That led to what the character in the movie, Nicola, concluded for himself, that he shouldn’t have left people he love alone. He always thought “people has the right to live however they pleased.” But sometimes the ones we love are not as strong as we perceived. They needed our voice of reason to nag them. They needed reassurance of love and the feeling that they were needed. The modern world, especially the western modern world’s politeness, and the respect for privacy sometimes led to deadly consequences. Because we are all so alone. We needed to know we are loved and we are needed. Constantly. That’s why I think gun is such an evil weapon. It helped that moment of weakness plunge into the abyss, with no return, no second chance. It was so final, so quick and so deadly. A couple of more interesting points about the movie: # My friend's Gui's comment: I kept thinking about the movie, too. Of Matteo’s death. Then a “side thought” came to me: if the actor wasn’t so beautiful, would I care as much? I doubt I would (I imagined if the charactor was played by… say, Matt Damon). Matteo was intelligent, sensitive, and well-meaning, but behaved quite a bit like a jerk. His beauty seems to be the thing that completes the package and makes it compelling. But if this movie was a novel — as many critics compared it to — it would be a different matter. Visual elements are always so simple and powerful. My Reply: I was actually thinking that the major mis-calculation on all Matteo’s friends and family made was the “intelligent” part. How he always got A’s. Everyone assumed that because he was highly intelligent so he must know what was best for himself. But Intelligence is overrated, not just in the case of Enron. Beauty certain helped. It, like you pointed out, perfected him even more. Turned him into a god, who could do no wrong. But gods do all kinds of stupid things, don’t they? They could get away with their deeds because they are immortal. - Anthony Lane’s Review from the New Yorker, Issue of 2005-04-25IN TRANSLATION : http://www.newyorker.com/printables/critics/050425crci_cinema