今天的課:王昱老師的工作坊
上了兩個星期王昱老師的課,增加了不少對攝影的認識(你知道,我是個技術盲),又重新整理了很多有關電影的理念,茅塞頓開。
昨天的課堂裡,他從自己拍過的電影裡,找了一些選段來給我們做解說。其中一部是《吳清源》。嘩,不得了,這次再看,每個鏡頭都給我帶來極巨大的震撼,不僅是畫面上的,還有是音響上的、和導演的細密構思。簡單舉例:吳清源童年部分的第一個畫面,拍攝吳從天井跨過門檻走進父親(缺席)的臥室,鏡頭利用門的左右兩旁黑位,框著人物,加上褪至跡近黑、白的色彩,儼然是標準銀幕的比例(1:1.33)——符合了故事開章的時代背景(20年代末期),待鏡頭隨著人物左右跳動,才揭露出原來是 1:1.85 的比例。第一場圍棋決戰,用了對陣雙方(吳清源 Vs 秀哉名人)在對奕前各自走過庭園的木板廊道的腳步來營造步步為營的凝重氣氛,配樂(趙立)偷偷在腳步聲中加入了零星的鼓聲,使張力在無形中變得更緊。我之前寫:「殆無疑問,縱使《吳清源》到最後仍不免是部失敗作,它也是一部光芒四射的失敗作」,真是胡言亂語!
待完成整個工作坊後,無論如何,一定要抽時間由頭到尾把文章重新 revise 一遍。
Thank you for your insight,but I still think
回覆刪除Go Master is Tin's failure when compare to
Blue Kite.Cinematography can help and enhance
the film,but the overall artistic merit lies
with the director.
Martin
Thank you, Martin. I hope I'll be able to convince you with my future article on the film. As I said, the film does not only excel in Wang Yu's magnificent cinematography, but almost in every other aspect (except, maybe, in the acting of Chang Chen), whose sum total is nothing short of a manifestation of the brilliant and masterful direction of Tian Zhuangzhuang.
回覆刪除我覺得這個不是攝影的事情,而根本就是導演的場面調度在起作用啊。
回覆刪除像這種片子,是最適合用來作視聽語言分析的。
西宅
利用景框作構圖,亦是正常不過的手法。《小城之春》(費穆版)里就很多啊。
回覆刪除其實就視聽語言來說,譚家明的電影更加突出,但有什么用?完全沒有內容啊。
我真覺得好電影,就是侯孝賢導演所說的那樣,既簡單又深邃。普通觀眾完全不懂視聽語言,也能覺出好,這才是masterpiece!
呵呵。
西宅
Can't agree more with you in the case of Patrick Tam's film (I'm particularly referring to AFTER THIS, OUR EXILE), but fortunately, this does NOT apply in THE GO MASTER.
回覆刪除又:簡單,應作“貌似簡單”。偉大藝術家的簡單,從來不簡單(最佳例子:Kiarostami的《Five》與《Shirin》)。打從《南國,再見南國》開始,侯一直在倒退中。近作《Flight of the Red Baloon》就唔慌唔簡單嘞!
回覆刪除因有關《吳清源》,很想發表一下意見。
回覆刪除我記得片中無論吳在深思,還是在樹叢間步行,還有面對航行中的大海。電影都表達出一種無以名狀的心情,是壓抑、懷疑還是關於信仰上的危機。
我很佩服田壯壯的勇氣,覺得他選擇了一個很困難的角度去說這樣的一個人物,用影像、用氛圍去構築。《吳》片不是單純的影音示範,而是影像本身已經承載了相當多的內容,甚至太多呢。
又,我不認為譚家明沒有內容啊,形式本身亦可以是一種內容(從眾多藝術變革中亦不難發現例子,)只是圍繞其中的有沒有價值罷了(同時亦須要時代去考量吧。)
*可惜只看過《吳清源》一次,一直關注田壯壯,所以當時堅持到戲院觀摩。
此留言已被作者移除。
回覆刪除此留言已被作者移除。
回覆刪除K, Can't agree more with you on THE GO MASTER.
回覆刪除Yes, the film DEMANDS to be seen on the big screen and for MANY viewings (shouldn't all great films be the same?).
Have to disagree with you on P. Tam's works (esp. AFTER THIS, OUR EXILE) -- the point is, the so-called formalism in his works is both thin and not totally justified, not to say self-contained. His "imitation" of Godard & Antonioni was confined pretty much to the surface and some visual compositions, but was never modeled on the spirit of their films, not to mentioned the essence, meaning that his understanding of the the masters (as well as European cinema in the 60s and 70s, for that matter) was limited to just the outlook (只形似,而非神似). I hope I'll be able to elaborate more on this in future. (That said, I am all for the fact that his "experimentation" back 30 years ago did have its impact on Hong Kong TV & Cinema as a whole and was significant historically.)