[影片]卢旺达旅馆

[Jun]

昨晚总算把借来一周都没看的DVD给看了。

第一次 ，是讲到UN驻军把白人都撤走的时候。一看表，哇，连一半也不到，下面还长着呢。

继续往下看，又 ，一会儿又 ，一会儿又 。完了看碟上的"Making Of..."。再来一轮 。最后关机时周围一堆湿透的纸巾，我觉得简直已经失水过多了。

如果你没看过这部片子一定会说哇太惨了，太depressing，我不要看。其实，奇怪的是，我并不觉得depressing. Children of men is depressing. Hotel Rwanda一点也不。第一是没有特别血腥和恐怖的镜头，第二是完全没有妖魔化任何人。没有一丝的exploitation or sensationalism。尤其是知道这是个真实的故事，里面的主角都是真的，而且从花絮里看到的Paul一点也不让人失望。

老土的Roger Ebert曾经说过一部出色的好片子，让人看完了觉得自己变了一点点，内心有些地方已经跟看之前有点不同（大意）。这么说很老土，但是我真的觉得，看完了，自己也变了一点点，多了那么一点点。。。哈，不是对世界的失望, 而是希望，而且，希望自己也变成一个比现在更好一点的人。

谢天谢地，这个真实的故事没有落到好莱坞的魔掌中，没有落到Ed Zwick, Steven Spielberg，这些人手里。

[Knowing]

你别说好莱坞的魔掌什么的－－卢旺达旅馆就算是商业化的了，有明星，又有强烈的主线情节－－我看过一点sometime in april ，据说是卢旺达旅馆 的独立制片版本，结果半天莫名奇妙，根本看不下去。。。。当然那天状态也不好，特别困还是怎么地。

[camellia]

这部片子独立制片的最大的好处是可以让Don Cheadle演男主角，如果是好莱坞制作，肯定要用票房更好的演员，比如说华盛顿（他太义正词严，理直气壮，不适合）。我还想不出比Don Cheadle更合适的。但是他的票房号召力就是不够。
如果没有奥斯卡，会有多少非艺术青年的大众去看这部片子呢？而拍这类影片的目的，并不是拿奖，也不是为电影史留名，而是让更多的人知道当年的卢旺达大屠杀，让观众在感动之后会关心自己小圈子外的局势，从而防止同样的惨剧发生。
卢旺达胡图族屠杀死了至少80万。如果UN不撤兵，如果英国贩子不卖武器给胡图族，如果没有德国殖民者的制造和扩大的种族仇恨根源，甚至没有那个比利时广播罪犯，那场屠杀都不会这么惨。
辛德勒的名单虽然某种程度上撒狗血，但是他的宣传效果是最好的，影响是最大的。IMDB上3万多个人给卢旺达酒店评分，辛德勒名单有13万多。如果南京大屠杀的影片有13万多人给评分，我就不需要每次解释的时候借用犹太人遭受的屠杀，甚至我都不需要解释。

[Knowing]

有南京大屠杀的电影么？哪里？中国政府的宣传片不算。
话又说回来，比起老毛手里死的人，全体日军八年里加起来的都是小数目。我更愿意看到有一部好的毛泽东传记独立电影－－也不能是类似轮子功的宣传诽谤片。

[tuscany]

My mother has been reading Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang & Jon Halliday with passion for the last few months. (Her generation seeems to be very keen on digging out all truth about this person.) From what she tells me about the book, I am rather curious to see if someone will make a documentary out of it.

[森林的火焰]

我更愿意看到有一部好的毛泽东传记独立电影－－也不能是类似轮子功的宣传诽谤片。

这个难在， 懂得如何独立摄制编辑的在国外，或者在国内的时候不能拍；但在国内又根本没法拍。西方人拍起来，不是太有革命的浪漫性，认为牺牲点人在所难免；就是习惯性地往小众上站队，非得从满蒙回藏的角度。仿佛从大多数的角度讲很boring，不能吸引眼球一样。他们对受众的划分惯性太大，总爱依据种族宗教。

[Jun]

我不同意小K说的商业化。独立制作并不等同于新奇反传统的叙述方法和＂艺术＂手段。卢旺达旅馆采取特别直接平实的手法讲这个故事，其实是一个勇敢的决定。Terry George相信这个故事和人物本身的力量足够打动观众，噱头和花哨只能适得其反，同时并不刻意避免略带煽情嫌疑的段落，该加激昂音乐的地方还是加了；但不强调渲染。这个火候其实很重要。他要让广大观众看得懂，不反感，被征服，同时保证不廉价化，保持强烈的真实感和说服力。

如果是好来坞片商出钱，除了不让Don Cheadle 这种没有票房号召力的演员主演之外，肯定会强塞进一个白人主角占至少６０％的戏份，而黑人角色落为被拯救被保护的对象。Joaquin Phoenix 或者 Nick Nolte 的角色肯定会被无限扩大并且在故事中大有作为把真正主角挤到一边去了。

这部片子让我特别欣赏的地方在于看了以后没有被激发＂正义的愤怒＂（righteous anger）。这种片子很容易就变成控诉型的，让观众安全地站在正义的好人一边，树起坏人靶子让大家打倒。例如在Blood Diamond里面的珠宝商，或者在Constant Gardener里面的制药厂，或者最常见的whipping boy纳粹坏蛋。

[silkworm]

刚好在TIME杂志上看到有关南京大屠杀电影的消息：

Woody Harrelson took a break from filming Transsiberian in Lithuania to talk about Nanking, a documentary about Japan's 1937 invasion of China

When I hear "documentary about the rape of Nanking," I can't say the name Woody Harrelson immediately springs to mind.

It is an odd pairing, I guess. The director sent it to me. I care about these things. In the States, nobody really knows about this horrific event. When I first saw the letters my character sent to his family, I was completely moved.

You read the letters of a U.S. doctor who stayed in Nanking during the invasion. Is that what you would have done?

That's a kind of heroism I can't really fathom. I would have been on the first plane out.

How do you maintain your all-organic diet in Vilnius, Lithuania?

Vilnius is a really cool, cultural city. But the restaurants aren't catering to vegans. I'm 90% raw. I bring someone with me who does my cooking.

You're there making a movie about riding the Trans-Siberian railway?

Yeah, I play one of those guys who has elaborate train sets, is always reading train books, knowing what's the coolest locomotive. I used to always walk on the train tracks as a kid. It probably helped my balance.

Owen Wilson told me you're writing a script together. So, which one of you is the whip cracker?

Neither. We wrote about three sentences. It's just so much fun hanging out with Owen, it's hard to get down to business. I like to bring in the other Bickerson brothers, too. That's what I call the Wilson brothers. I consider myself one of them.

Do you bicker with them too?

When winning is at stake. We play bocce, croquet. You can't believe how serious a wonderful lawn game can become when you play it with the Wilson brothers.

[Knowing]

我不同意小K说的商业化。独立制作并不等同于新奇反传统的叙述方法和＂艺术＂手段。

独立制作从本意上讲是指没有大STUDIO 参与制作的电影，引申为INDY风格，但是现在也有很多交错。卢旺达旅馆从制作上其实不算INDY， 我记得是有大制片厂参与的，查了查，是 Lions Gate Films 和 United Artists 合作。Lions Gate Films 挺大的，United Artists 可能名气不响，但其实是MGM 的下属。很多大电影公司有下属STUDIO投资发行INDY 电影，因为投入小，很容易收回本来，投对了还能赚大钱中头彩。这就是为什么我说＜Some time in April > 是它的独立制片版本。
风格上来说，卢旺达旅馆是大众电影市场里的INDY，但是已经算挺polished. 你大概没被拉去村里看过小电影. 独立制作的小片子很多是没法看的，毫无头绪一团乱麻，看半天不知所云。＂这个火候＂很容易吗？也是懂得观众心理精心控制的结果。商业化并不是绝对贬义的词。你脑子里好莱坞大片风格不但是远远超过正常程度的商业化，而且是糟糕的商业化。话又说回来，拉投资不是那么容易的，要找有票房号召力的演员，Will Smith, Denzel Washington, 整个制作成本还不得翻一翻。他们想找制片商还不一定肯，这片子题材冷门，谁知道能不能赚钱。

[Jun]

According to the Independent Spirit Awards' definition, if a movie's budget is below $xxx (I don't remember, a few million, I think), it is eligible for the award consideration. Of course you can also argue that this is just the Indy "spirit".

I don't know who put up the money to make Hotel Rwanda. UA and LSF may have, but then they might have only invested in the DISTRIBUTION of the movie after it was made. The marketing and distribution often require more cash infusion that making a movie, but the results are often increased audience and box office.

Not all small-budget movies are made on money from the filmmakers' own credit card and John Singleton's own wallet. Is a movie "independent" if the budget is small but the money comes from a big studio? Is it "independent" if it's made in the writer/director's parent's basement, but gets picked up by a big studio and distributed in all major multiplex? Is Sideways independent? Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon? Little Miss Sunshine? Foreign movies with money from BBC? French 4? Are they "big studios" or small investors?

If we agree that movies made on the money from Miramax (owned by Disney) or Fox Searchlights (20th Century Fox) more or less qualify as "independent," then Hotel Rwanda definitely qualifies too. But I agree that it is often ambiguous what is "independent." For example, Clint Eastwood's Letters from Iwo Jima was produced by Paramount's money (or was it WB?), but its budget was so low that it qualifies for Independent Spirit Awards.

I can see the reason for ISAs to restrict not the investor but the budget for their selections. Even if large studios put up the initial money, the size of the budget is a strong predictor of how much creative control is left in the filmmakers' hand. In the case of Hotel Rwanda, I don't know for sure but cannot detect obvious trace of "big studio"'s influence in creative choices.

Of course, there are many many small-budget movies that ARE made in basements, shot on DV, and financed by credit cards that STAY small and never get anybody to buy them. But I'm very reluctant to limit my definition of "independent movies" to these movies. There is a category in ISAs that specifically consider ultra-low-budget movies (below $100,000 or something), like Primer from a few years back.

Back to Hotel Rwanda, I read somewhere before that, when the script was being circulated around, some big studios were indeed interested in making it, but demands that Will Smith or Denzel Washington be the lead. Terry George decided not to go for it. I can't be 100% sure, but I don't believe he would intentionally turn down a bigger budget if his creative control of the project can be guaranteed by a big Hollywood studio.

风格上来说，卢旺达旅馆是大众电影市场里的INDY，但是已经算挺polished

风格上来说, John Sayles' movies have VERY CONVENTIONAL narrative approaches. Nothing fancy or twisty or flashy. But he is the godfather of independent movies. Nobody is more "pure" than he. A conventional realism is often the most effective way to tell a story, even though it doesn't have the "look how clever I am" zing to it.

However, I'm not trying to dismiss nonlinear methods or narration. Look how well Tarantino and Almodovar and Egoyan do the nonlinear narratives. Again, if it's well done, it's well done. When it sucks, it's silly and awful.

[Knowing]

I am not talking about narrative approaches. What made me feel so mainstream about it was that main characters were too loveable and there was not a minute of it that the audience felt conflicted. You were absolutely right that there was no cheap "righteous anger", and I gave the director credit for it. But again, our sympathy safely went into all the Tutsi and Hutu refugees. And on some level, our anger were directed to the Hutu extremists. But Hutu extremists were human too before they turned into monsters. What happened before the genocide that built up the anger and seperation was insufficiently depicted. The story was told too -- smoothly. So at the end of the day, we as audience from a remote country, did not think much of the history of the conflict but one man's heroic action. But had I been someone living in Rwanda, I would have wanted our whole story heard.

I am not saying it is not a good movie. It is wonderful, and one movie can't do everything.

[Jun]

I see what you mean. And I agree. This is not a particularly profound or philosophically sophisticated movie. It is not technically fantastic(by "technical" I mean both visual and narrative techniques). It is NOT a marvel of the creator's extraordinary genius. Technically, I would say, for example, Pulp Fiction is a much more sophisticated movie. Hotel Rwanda is straight forward and conventional. Plain. Although I don't think this decision is based on a "commercial" reason. One could argue that Terry George intentionally choose an "easy" story rather than going into the complexity of the social and moral aspects. It is an "easy" and "accessible" movie. That is true. But that feels right in this particular case. Technically it is not "the year's 10 best," but the emotional impact is certainly the most significant.

[Knowing]

No I don't think it is based on "commercial commercial" reason, but more or less because the topic is already so heavy, the director chosed to play down to make it more accessible to audience. That's what I meant.

[Jun]

这部片子并不讳言自己是有立场有倾向的，但是还是有效果而不让人反感，为什么呢？我觉得很要紧的一点是restraint和真实感。没错，煽情的地方，有！但是没有让人感觉故意拔高思想觉悟的地方。我看了花絮里的真人，完全没有被蒙骗的感觉。不是说Don Cheadle演得不好哈，真的旅馆经理Paul给我更强烈的佩服的印象，就是编剧Keir Pearson说的"unflappable poise"。情节虽然有些地方是把不同事件或者几个真实人物混合在一起浓缩的，但没有留下操纵观众感情的感觉。

如果有人要拍南京大屠杀的事儿吧，我个人觉得最紧要的既不是立场和主义，也不是写大写小，而是观众对这样的作品的期望。写大可以完全采取写实的手法，象Battle of Algier（昨晚才看的）极度冷峻客观，效果非常震撼；或者象卢旺达旅馆那样写个人经验，特意避免感官刺激人。因为各种政治和历史原因，对＂应该如何＂用文艺方式表现中日战争的故事，大家各有各的尺度和期望，而且感情极端火爆，众人对同一作品肯定有不同的强烈的gut reaction，不可能意见一致。当然，比较安全平稳的是相对客观写实的，象United93那样的，但这样会不会牺牲掉独特的个人感受呢？中国人民的舆论一不小心就沸腾了，骂声永远比赞扬响几百辈，这样的环境里让搞文艺的很难放松表达自己的小众观点，比较让人紧张。只有少数象鬼子来了，一个和八个那样的片子才敢跟主流的说法和期望有所偏离。还有一个最好事先（作者自己）搞清楚的问题是拍一部关于中日战争的影片，故事片也好，甚至纪录片，最终目的是什么，面向哪一群的观众。目标不同的观众群（有知的成年观众vs无知的青少年，中国观众vs外国观众，第三者如英美观众vs第二者日本观众），不同的出发点（是教育还是感动还是警告还是出气还是煽动。。。），搞不清楚这些，产品的感情立场和tone就会很混乱。

不过我也就是说说，反正我自己应该是没胆儿看任何关于中日战争的电影的，除非是完全虚写战场和屠杀的类型（一盘未完的棋这类的）。I just can't bear it. I would not personally want to see a movie about the Rape of Nanking itself.

[crazyrats]

看卢旺达旅馆,哭了,愤怒了,悲伤了,并没觉得有太多的希望.个体的高贵情操不能改变什么.
发生在遥远国度的屠杀,可以在电影里看到,可以大致明白这一切发生的起因.发生在我们自己国土上的呢?被异族凌辱的,没勇气看; 自相残杀的,不忍心看.到头来,还是风花雪月最安全最适意
强烈BS自己一下

[Jun]

个体的高贵情操不能改变什么.

Tell that to the 1200 people who lived, who will have children, who will remember this act of kindness.

And it's not some abstract lofty concept as 高贵情操, it's about being willing and able to SUCCESSFULLY save lives, including but not limited to one's own, not only because he is decent and generous, but also smart, calm, poised, emotionally intelligent, resourceful, and damned good with people -- any kind of people.

Other than "oh, isn't he a wonderful human being", what fascinated me was really Paul's incredible survival skills.

[crazyrats]

不是否定他的善行,我所说"不能改变什么",是指那样反人类的种族屠杀,我不相信会从此绝迹.只要有合适的土壤,恶之花还会绽放的.
我们的分歧, 好比最黑暗的夜晚,你看到了那唯一的微光,而我,却不由自主更关注那墨般的黑暗