最好的青春

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！

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

柔之胜刚，欲速不达， 中国古人的智慧，是此片的主线。 佐珍隐喻这个世界的问题， 马迪奥和尼古拉尝试以自以为正确的方式去解决， 两人在车站的诀别， 意味着两种人生的展开。 答案在最终， 时间为友，享受过程，原则性不强的尼古拉找到了正确答案。 尼古拉让佐珍每日浇水的片段，令人动容， 背后是面对冷酷现实不急不躁，从容冷静的心态， 这是导演认为走向灿烂人生应有的心态。

----------------------------------

尼古拉和妻子朱莉安是辅线， 不带隐喻的方式阐述两人改变世界的方式， 与主线不同的是， 此辅线重在阐述人生的认知方式， 学生时期与朱莉安一起沉溺于学潮的尼古拉， 从错误的认知中走出来， 尼古拉嘲讽着带女儿从乌烟瘴气的左派会议中走过的场景， 隐喻着他与之前认知的决裂， 走向科学理性的怀抱， 这是导演认为人生应有的理性认知。

-----------------------------------

片中提倡的友善与包容也是对人生认知的极重要的一点， 认为爱是链接灿烂人生重要因素。 两人的母亲每周坚持探望马里奥瘫痪的好友， 是导演关于爱的的隐喻。 爱的重要性在于与残缺的链接，对坏的包容，让社会不至于断裂。 然而，善恶分明，原则性过强的马里奥， 因此错失了爱的链接， 马里奥跳楼前， 与女朋友未能接通的电话， 隐喻着爱的最终断裂。 -----------------------------------

片中一些小的片段也展现出导演对人生的看法， 尼古拉的朋友从失业困境中艰难走出， 暗示了我们面对挫折应有的态度。 尼古拉的另一位朋友，后来的妹夫， 面对暗杀威胁选择留在国内的态度， 暗示了我们面对困难恐惧是应有的坚强和执着。

----------------------------------

尼古拉以看似慢，看似无原则、 但充满理性科学、充满爱的方式， 好似龟兔赛跑，改变了世界很多很多， 改变了心理学认知， 改变了法律， 治愈了佐珍， 用爱从新与朱莉安建立链接，

但，这就是灿烂人生的吗？ 终极的疑问在于， 尼古拉永远无法改变马里奥， 或许，复杂与多样才是人生真正的灿烂之处吧。

-------------------------------

第一次看长达6小时的电影， 娓娓道来， 感悟颇多， 这部电影展现了 有着千年传承的民族， 理应有的文化深度。