卢斯

Not sure if this is intentional on Onah's part or not, but I see that there's a play on the ambiguity between code-switching and sociopathy, in which the line is blurred depending on whether Luce's intention is to uphold a certain image in front of his family/teachers vs his friends, or to manipulate the situation to pursue some passive-aggressive twisted sense of justice at some particular moments. I'd say that this ambiguity was successfully played out by Kelvin Harrison Jr. which has kept a lot of audience members including me confused but intrigued at the same time.

I think being taken out of a war-torn Eritrea and an ex-child soldier to be in a comfortable American family, Luce knows exactly what freedom means, at least in this large national setting. It is what every American wants to believe in: the freedom to change your narrative, the freedom to be the master of your own destiny, to be EXACTLY who you set out to be. While America may be freer than Eritrea in some senses, this particular narrative is nothing but an illusion. Race, gender, social-economic background, and lots of other elements can affect the course of one's life (i.e. Orlicki and potentially his dog being Dartmouth legacy students while DeShaun's whole future relying on his athletic scholarship.)

Though Luce is appreciative of what Mr. and Mrs. Edgar have provided for him and he has worked hard to show it, he's slowly figuring out through Harriet and other adults that although he is black and he has other black friends and teammates, he is treated differently because of the progress he has made comparing to his undeniable past. Like most Americans, these people love a good glow-up, and Luce is their poster boy, seen as an exceptional person that transcends race and other challenging circumstances, and most importantly, an asset (Notice how Principal Towson has referred him as his thoroughbred, and jokingly, someone he would like to clone... Get Out much Towson?) Although Luce is aware of this unfairness, he's probably ill-prepared by his white parents about the larger injustice a young black man like him might face in the world outside of this academic bubble, something Harriet knows too well. While all the Edgers ever wanted (mostly just Amy) is to protect Luce from his past and to give him the fresh start he deserves, Harriet wants to protect him from his future – a future where it doesn't matter if you are a star athlete or a debate champion, black people have a higher chance to be arrested or worse because of the color of their skin. On top of the personal experience of injustice Harriet might have faced by simply being an adult black woman in America, she has probably witnessed countless of times of cops unjustly mishandling her mentally unstable sister and not treating her with basic decency that any human deserves. So to her, there's no way for someone to break out of this figurative box unless you're exceptional and extraordinary like the way she expects Luce to be – a future Obama-esque figure. There's perhaps this flawed zero-sum logic that she has, and the way she carries out her lessons is unprofessional and potentially breaching the ethic codes at the least. Like Luce, Harriet operates on some sort code of justice informed by her limiting worldview: she wants Stephanie Kim to be the voice that stands up against rape culture regardless of her personal wishes (Still pretty f*cking messed up that Kim just brushed off the Santa Claus game like it's nothing) and makes Deshaun a scapegoat as a warning to other black track athletes.

To Luce, Harriet is just an instrument of the system she's trying to protect her students from, making her an unfortunate target of Luce's resentment and his borderline sociopathic and passive-aggressive path of retaliation. Having adoptive and liberal parents who constantly worry about losing his trust if they overstep, Luce probably gets away with a lot of things growing up and has learned how to deal with social situations (locker room talk, toxic masculinity, or treating girls with respect) with little parental guidance (Peter automatically equates the word stern with bitchy when it's used to describe women). He is smart enough to know how to lie and uphold the good boy image in front of the adults and remain a cool sociable dude who's down to smoke a blunt in some hidden cabin, but he is still trying to figure out who he is other than his past when everyone else sees him as the prime example of nurture trumping nature. In his mind, he's trying to make things right for Deshaun and Stephanie, but the ways he manipulates them into doing the dirty work reflects the limitation of his empathy and just how ill-constructed this 17YO's sense of justice is.

区别于国产电影的政治明确

这个电影仿佛发开了我的新大陆，看惯中国电影总觉得卢斯需要被揭发，所以当电影结束时我想着卧槽这就结束了？

我很擅长假装 每个人都应该擅长伪装 每个人都喜欢揣测 真的与假的不重要 人们只相信揣测 其实一开始我看半天都云里雾里的，因为分不清卢斯说话的真假，他说假话的时候太真了。

现实不也是这样吗，说假话的时候太真了，假装的时候也太真实了。

算了别跟人计较了，生活是一个人的，要开心要好好生活

Luce, a former child soldier, gets a new lease on life in the USA when he was 10, his adoptive parents Amy and Peter Edgar (Watts and Roth, reunited after their bloody ordeal in Michael Haneke’s FUNNY GAMES, 2007) sacrifice the chance of birthing their own child to raise him proper (after years of psychological adjustment), and have deep faith in Luce’s worthiness.

But Harriet Wilson (Spencer), Luce’s history teacher, always keeps a weather eye on him, a martinet with her own familial problem (it is a cliché Wilson is designated as a lonesome spinster saddled with an unhinged sister), she confiscates a bag of illegal fireworks hidden in Luce’s locker after receiving Luce’s assignment which problematically espouses the radical revolutionary Frantz Fanon. Afterwards she informs Amy and one thing leads to another, doubt arises, tension escalates and duplicity prevails.

However, the film keeps us dithering in this Wilson versus Luce tug-of-war, key information is implied, but the whole picture remains murky. Luce’s upstanding veneer starts to peel off, he is vindictive, manipulative and a pathological liar, but is it just a normal teenager’s foibles or something more sinister? Courtesy to Harrison’s chameleonic impressions, he can be quite spine-tingling, beaming with a broad smile, without dissimulating affectation, but also in total earnest when he pleads with Amy, or goes toe to toe with a stern Wilson like a wronged kid or shooting veiled threat in subtle inflection, Luce’s complexity completely surpasses our expectation and wrong-foots Amy and Peter. So when an irrefutable evidence proves Luce’s culpability, it is his parents’ turn to decide what is the right thing to do, yet Onah and his co-screenwriter J.C. Lee choose not to vouchsafe them a moral high ground, Amy and Peter already have too much invested in their bargain of political correctness, their noble act cannot be a failed experiment, in for a penny, in for a pound, their family tie cannot be severed by mere ethics.

As a result, Wilson is left as the victim who doesn’t get her justice served, Onah might be applauded of defying stereotypes of an upstanding black male teenage, but obviously he throws Wilson, a full-figured, righteous, middle-aged black woman under the bus, the gender discrimination is too tenacious to dispel, and it is not just within the African-America sphere, the casual typecast of an Asian slut, it is incumbent on Amy to instigate the parent’s complicity, and she is the one who should feel upset for ruining Peter’s chance to be a “real” father, should I continue?

However, it is Spencer who comes to LUCE’s rescue. Even fighting a losing battle, Spencer reassures us that Wilson will not end up like a miserable loser, she is all fire and spark, erring on the side of being right, she is a heroine manqué, but her assertion of what is wrong with USA can really hit a raw nerve, and Spencer is spectacular to watch, you don’t messy with her, her Wilson is not faultless, but most of the time, she is the smartest person in the room.

If plot contrivances are conspicuous, and the intermittent aural assault of heavy bass can be deafening, LUCE, for what it is worth, still comes through as a strong piece of dramaturgic treatise which compellingly delves into the intricacies of America’s hot-button racial issue, at the very least, it proffers us some insightful food for thought, does Luce mean light or Lucifer?

referential entries: Michael Haneke’s FUNNY GAMES (2007, 6.7/10); Garth Davis’ LION (2016, 7.1/10).

Title: Luce

Year: 2019

Country: USA

Language: English

Genre: Drama, Mystery

Director: Julius Onah

Screenwriters: Julius Onah, J.C. Lee

based on the play by J.C. Lee

Music: Geoff Barrow, Ben Salisbury

Cinematography: Larkin Seiple

Editing: Madeleine Gavin

Cast:

Kelvin Harrison Jr.

Naomi Watts

Octavia Spencer

Tim Roth

Noah Gaynor

Astro

Andrea Bang

Marsha Stephanie Blake

Norbert Leo Butz

Rating: 7.1 /10

《卢斯》非常棒！还是那句话，种族题材怎么拍怎么有。此片更是有大突破，由黑人导演执拍种族题材，天然赋予了该片表达政治不正确的资格，这正是审美疲劳的人们所期待的。

影片围绕着被一对白人夫妇领养的黑人高中生卢斯与其黑人女老师之间旷日持久的矛盾徐徐展开，采用诸多高级的心理悬疑手法，抽丝剥茧地探寻一个黑人孩子的成长过程与内心世界。

这个黑人孩子并不一般，儿时受过心灵创伤，临近高中毕业，成为全校的骄傲，以及其师口中“被微光照见的黑盒子里的幸运儿”，他几乎就是像奥巴马那样具有政客潜质的天才。

而这种潜质不可免俗地夹带了伪善本质与表演本能。应当说在美国这样的国度，那些有成就的演员只要他有政治野心，且是个现实主义者，那么成功走上政坛的概率就非常大。

看到最后，片中的是非题其实已经不重要了，导演通过复盘后的清零，成功将这个隐喻推向了一个新高度。普罗大众所要面对的不是该不该原谅不完美，而是应以怎样的姿态来拥抱它。在现实中，几乎所有人都会做出相同的选择：宁愿给一个心理阴暗的天才十次重新来过的机会，也不肯原谅笨小孩一次过失。因为同样是不完美，前者距离成功更近些。

那么，卢斯的秘密究竟是什么呢？答案是，一个美国黑人的成功秘诀，其中包含了，如何说谎，如何排除异己，如何被更多同族裔接纳，如何获得白人同情，如何将肤色劣势转化为优势进而引导利用舆论，如何抢占道德高地，如何操控爱慕者，如何在得势后见好就收……

最值得一提的是本片的配乐，那是来自非洲大陆的原生态音乐，时常与画面格格不入，若不稍微深想一步，甚至会将配乐视为败笔。但这也许是我觉得最妙的处理，正因它时时浮现，不分场合地闯入，才强烈提醒着我，主人公的种族特性有多么根深蒂固，即使长达十年自由国度优渥的新生活也难以抹去。

Luce最后的一场对话，点燃了这场电影的高潮。

Luce或许带着一点胜利者的心态和歉意去看望被他设局踢开的Harriet时，却没想到，Harriet告诉他的是他绝对没有想到过的真实世界。

Luce认为，不能因为一点小错就把一个人的前途毁灭——Deshaun因为被Harriet破柜找出大麻，就丧失了田径队、奖学金和一线之间的前途——Harriet却告诉他，如果她没有惩罚这个人的恶行，就会有一个人的善行得不到奖励。这在Luce看来完全错误：为什么我们非得变得完美才能得到别人的奖励？为什么我们不能接受一个正常而有瑕疵的人？可是，Harriet再次告诉他，这就是我们生活的世界，尤其是在一个天生被别人歧视的黑暗、肮脏而无法改变的世界里，如果我们不是“完美”地呈现给别人，就根本没有生存的希望。Luce再次回击：这不过是你自己设想并希望被承认的世界，而我不愿意按照别人的希望和评价来生活。Harriet最后告诉他：你错了，想想为你脱责的那些人是谁吧——你的好心的、几乎没有瑕疵的但却不惜眼睁睁撒谎的白人父母？你的白人朋友？他的爷爷、爸爸甚至连他们家的狗都能想办法进到达特茅斯学院（Dartmouth）！还是轻易就会相信这些人的白人校长？——你还是没有真正理解这个世界！

几番交涉下来，Luce实际上是完败了。他只能按照别人希望他的样子来展现自己的“完美”，只能站在演讲台上回忆自己成为美国人的幸运，只能讲述已经在众人努力下神奇谱写另一种生活的故事。他几乎不能有一点点的不完美，否则立马就是一个魔鬼一般的怪物！

Harriet不正是这个“不完美”的例子吗？她在学校勤勤恳恳工作了那么多年，校长都承认她是个优秀教师，她自己说，把心都给了这个学校、这群孩子，可结果，仅仅因为自己“严厉”——尽管采用了自己认为充满“正当理由”的侵犯隐私的bitch的方式——就被自己的学生陷害失火，让自己的妹妹当众羞辱（迟到的Luce可能仍然是始作俑者），而且，自己的一线希望不也立马失去了吗？学校立马撇清和她的关系，并且声明在调查中不会支持她……

Harriet把这一切看得清清楚楚，她厌恶那些和自己死死地栓绑在一块的不争气的人，甚至厌恶自己唯一的亲人，可她却毫无办法改变这一切。也许，我们会说，不管怎样，你要宽容，不管是对犯有过错的学生，还是对病中无法控制自己行为的亲人，也许多一份宽容，结果就会不同。可是，在真实的世界中，这份宽容可能吗？即便Harriet对Deshaun宽容了，这个世界会对Deshaun宽容吗？ Luce都不敢散发着一股大麻味在黑夜的大街上闲逛，他的白人朋友还问他：你不会真的以为“别人”——无疑是Harriet在社会中的加强版，拥有“正当理由”来怀疑和搜查的警察——会来抓你吧！Luce知道，完全可能！一点点过错自己可能就变成Deshaun，自己也是白人朋友口中的the black of black，而不是什么Luce in the black。而且，我们与其苛刻地要求Harriet，为什么不把她也作为一个有缺陷的正常人来对待呢？虽然Harriet失之刻薄，无法令人喜欢、可怜，但她宁愿真实地、充满缺陷地、bitch般地作为这个刻薄世界的一员而保持自己“刻薄”，她希望惩恶扬善地接近那个渺茫的可能，而不是阳奉阴违地向他人表演“完美”。

也许，即便是不近人情的“刻薄”，也总比在生活中随时都要像政治表态一样，选择立场、作出决断、忍让、道歉，极力表现充满虚伪和恐怖的“爱”，要好些。

尽管我们绝对不会认为Harriet是Saint，但也绝对不认为她就是Monster。但在Luce身上，却似乎兼具着Saint的光鲜亮丽和monster的恐怖可能。看完影片，唯一留存在脑海中的就是，如何真实地面对世界、超越善恶（Saint—Monster）？不管是阴暗储物室中自然欲望的原始性释放，还是追光灯下声情并茂的社会性讲述，显然均非答案。

#第一届桃花岛影展云参展#

Luce，有光的含义，通过这部对美国梦巨大讽刺的片子，光的真实性被质疑，也许不过是自我投射。认定某事是黑暗的，某事是光明的，就有强烈的政治意图参与。线索之一的三次演讲，都是一次观众正面认识Luce的机会。开头第一次演讲看起来和普通高中演讲并无两样，引出与Wilson老师矛盾点时我还浑然不明为什么这位老师看起来心事重重，不是真正为学生的前途感到开心。第二次演讲面对着空空的礼堂见真心。最后一次演讲，忿忿抗议的人已被清除，坐席上的妈妈、黑人朋友、白人队友、少数裔女友，都默默地听着，看着，继续做着谎言的传递的帮凶。Luce的台词和第二次崩溃时的台词一样，但这一次加上表演之后，以假乱真。Luce说妈妈希望光能驱散自己小时候战时的黑暗，但没有人会去问这个黑暗是怎么造成的。

假话的延续

每一部与身份密切相关的电影都容易惹来非议，就像片中爸爸所言，我只想要正常的生活而非政治宣言（在后文我会回应为什么他这一想法是靠不住的）。但切勿轻易下结论，认为政治正确才是导演的目的。这部片子里每个角色自身带有的象征意义深入人心，可以说人物的身份预设成为了mise-en-scene的一部分。片子很大一部分都是由对话组成，母亲和儿子谈话，同族裔前辈与后辈谈话，夫妻，教师校长等，轮换着扮演最高审判长的角色，在每一次的对话里，我是明显会察觉到其中的power dynamics。观众在观看影片的时候完全能理解where they are coming from，看到一个角色绝对会想到她们背后引申的含义。所以，明明我们作为观众自己都无法摆脱标签化人物，在生活中我们未必就真的很无辜，从来没有带着偏见待人过，所以才要正视标签不是吗，这也是Onah导演试图解构的。Luce指责Wilson时说，”like everyone’s a symbol to her. We all exist to confirm the world is the way she sees it.” 说这话时在片子很开头的部分，我想大多数观众都是认可Luce的观点的，我们都想逃离被标签化，但这个被攻击的把学生分类化的老师随着剧情发展越来越能让观众理解她的出发点，而Luce也被证实最终逃不出这个自己讨厌的身份圈套。影片虽然直指明显，Luce看起来是最狠阴谋家，但他所有的罪行都没有落下把柄，所以营造了一种真相是什么不重要，人不过是背负着社会的枷锁而已的氛围。要么做到完美，要么就被人唾弃，Luce必须得把自己的角色继续演下去。

权力关系

性别身份和种族身份交织，地位在在权力机构领域不断转换：开头Wilson找家长Amy聊时，她还是学校体系的发言人，被这一机构的集合力量保护着，尽管Amy不想侵犯孩子的隐私，但是还是和学校联合与孩子形成了对立。但当最后一次男校长和家长见面时，屋子里Wilson和Amy是唯一的两个女性，一个撒谎，一个被当成精神有问题的女人来对待。再比如Stephanie和Amy的谈话，是一个白人女性向亚洲女孩伸出橄榄枝，似乎肩挑着法官的义务去决定指控自己的黑人儿子还是黑人女老师。她在社会中的地位赋予了她去审判别人的权利，相比之下Wilson是步步错，最终被自己勤勤恳恳奉献15年的老东家开除（这和咱们国内劳工的问题很像）当Amy对Stephanie说我们都是女人，我们都应该团结，最后迎来的是两方的背叛，Amy明显知道自己儿子在情绪操控面前这个女孩，却退缩了没有进一步去保护她；而Stephanie也背叛了Wilson，沦为Luce洗清自己的工具。

说到女性角色，亚裔女孩Stephanie大多数时候不在讨论范围内，Luce的家人从不知道她的存在，而Luce为了保护朋友可以一边洗脑让她不要承认事实，一边又利用她的身体的情感。我个人觉得S明显是陷入了不实的承诺，把Luce灌输给他的当作是自己的想法，比如不报警是为了自己好，是一个现在我们说的“不完美受害者”形象，她可以哭着和Amy讲述自己的故事，但她只有借助别人才有自己的voice，甚至她这个角色就是feeble minded，她不会自己思考，只会听从别人的安排，所以她存在的价值只是在白人黑人种族问题理不清时拉进来为他们辩证自己观点时所用。她引起了Wilson的注意因为她可以作为Wilson说服校长的证据，但考虑到片中多次提到学校有很多谣言，甚至老师都知道了，学校还没有进行干预，也是对教育体系的一个嘲讽。女主Amy承担了维系家庭，梳理事件的责任，父亲则是没什么太决定性的作用。其实这位白人父亲和儿子的沟通方式非常奇怪，一点也不亲近，而且他表现出后悔收养Luce的情绪，一直在强调，想要一个正常的家，而这个“正常”很大程度上就是维持他在家的男性地位，一个以异性恋为核心，白人夫妇生养白人小孩的家庭模式。他作为社会中最被尊重，利益既得者，是不愿意打破传统的。他说想要生活，而不是把生活当作政治宣言来活。表面上看这句话是很对的，但当我们分析一下，谁才有资格说这句话，就不难想到谁又想活在重压之下？除他之外，大家没有选择。另一位女主Wilson，她是连接学校和社会的中间桥梁。她一边面对不省心等着被激发潜力的青少年，一边又面对着自己小家里社会不公平性最直接的例子。妹妹的药物上瘾的黑暗的现实是她最后对Luce说出你什么都不懂的原因。她说美国把我们每个人都禁锢在一个盒子里，有人得到阳光就注定有人要被踩在地下，在黑暗里生活，这一讨论，确实是Anita Hill事件引发争议一直到现在都没有解决的问题。

Luce提问的都是非常深刻的问题。奖励一个符合刻板印象的人和惩罚一个这样的人有什么区别呢？区别在于如果你反转了黑人不行的刻板印象，反而是会被用来继续维持谎言，看，美国就是自由的国度，每个人都可以重新开始。这样下去继续忽视了体制性问题，从而排挤少数族裔。模凌两可性在这部片子里也很好地体现了，stern/严格还是bitch/贱？非法爆炸物vs烟花，受害者vs.provoker。解读因人而异，可以小题大做，也可以大事化小。所谓体制也是如此，当父亲选择相信Wilson时，Amy抵抗说这个体制一直想把我们的黑人儿子打压下去，我不会让这一切发生的同时，她正是选择抨击黑人老师的权威性。片子里每个人说话的语言也都有趣，一般是先要对方站队，你怎么会相信xx而不相信我？不会直接回答问题。

全片剧作完整，即使嗑药，性骚扰和身份认同是美国青春片里常见的主题，但在这部片子里，主角是由这些常见话题引发出来的社会不公平性面面观。把简单的事情拍得异常有悬念，有恐怖片的元素。管教，miscommunication中存在的无法跨越的隔阂，不光来自于年龄代沟，而是真实地描绘了这个社会里我们每个人对自己的种族，定位的混乱。藏烟火的地方其实是过往Amy给Luce藏圣诞礼物的地方，当Luce向观众透露出来这点时，我会不由自主地想，那么他是在指控他的母亲把有破坏力的武器交到他手上了？Amy有过撕开Luce虚伪面孔的时刻，但她最终决定撒谎帮助儿子，也帮助维系平和生活表面的风平浪静。Luce将错就错，他的过错被无视，他于是最终把Wilson赶出了学校。再到最后的演讲，全场无声，过错交织理不清。

我还在想Dennis那条鱼的意义是什么。家长说永远忘不了可怜的鱼被摔死，但似乎年幼的Luce是真的相信他想让鱼飞起来。最后再养一条鱼重新开始也许是他的妥协，这次他已经明白鱼不会飞，鱼是要活在鱼缸里的。但也许某种意义上来说这也是好事，因为重心原则世界定理，鱼本来就是不会飞，在哪个国家都不会。

另外，三处裸露镜头完全没必要；Rosemary演得非常好