“When you think of Tarkovsky's cinema, especially Mirror, you see how an image isn't just created, but is linked to a history of representation, a history of forms, of images, of icons, but we can see how the image is propped up by another field, that of thought, of the Logos. In this sense, filmmakers are not necessarily philosophers but the cinema pays a lot of attention to what philosopher are doing, but also to what poets create. It's in that sense that cinema is a powerful form of experimentation, it's an art which grasps the relation that one has with the world, with things, with the being – there of the world, the cinema puts you face-to-face with ontological dimension of the world, when you're face-to-face with mountains, or flowers, face, a forest, a lake – in this attitude, this face-to-face, our fragility and our destiny is measure, at the same time as the strength of out gestures, of our emotions, our sentiments. It's in this sense that the cinema is extremely powerful.

The question of light is fundamentally the same as the question of sound, my desire is that the source be extremely powerful, vivid, blinding, of great intensity at the source but I want to film it at the final stage, when it's totally exhausted, when the light is dull, the sound barely audible like it had to travel across foggy spaces or maritime depths, as if heard through dense matter or cloud, the light also when it's just at the end of its course but continues to shine. This is what truly guided me, the idea of very powerful, intense sources of light and sound that you only see and hear, hear the last gasp of, the leftovers. There's a beautiful Beckett text called Ill Seen Ill said which is fundamental to this question, at certain moments the image will be "ill seen", the sound "ill heard". In Dreyer's Vampyr there's this incredible sound, you don't know what makes it, it's something that you no longer hear but that resonates inside you. The cinema is extremely powerful when it captures archaic, primary, originary sensation, that's what I at least want from film.”

--- Philippe Grandrieux

***

若要我說(shuō)一位我最?lèi)?ài)的法國導演，理所當然的會(huì )是Philippe Grandrieux，儘管首先要向別人懺悔的是我不夠別人那般熱烈地愛(ài)慕他拍的紀錄片。他的劇本是一首長(cháng)調詩(shī)，他的電影是一襲官能藝術(shù)：將催眠與治療，恍惚與狂喜，騷動(dòng)與靜候，挑釁到觀(guān)眾的耳目，傳情到動(dòng)容直至落淚的興奮。他把所謂的表象破壞砸開(kāi)，重組自己一組晦澀蒙昧的美學(xué)，使欠焦點(diǎn)而失衡鏡頭變得模糊不清，表面上象徵蒼茫及絕望的世界觀(guān)，但不論是在什么情況之下，顯然有疫病的徵兆，或類(lèi)似的東西；不管是在愛(ài)或是恨的情況下，都是一樣的。在我的血肉深處，緊縛著(zhù)骨髓，曾想用油脂調至一種近乎絕望的灰藍，注入我的血，泵進(jìn)我的心臟，我的名字將會(huì )滲出沝藍，別人的指尖觸摸我身體的時(shí)候，會(huì )很寒涼。Grandrieux的電影除了令人驚慄的配樂(lè )和過(guò)份沈迷蹂躪娼妓，還細說(shuō)捷克哲學(xué)家Jan Patocka在異端論中所說(shuō)廿一世紀人類(lèi)的感傷癖及令人暈厥的種種慘劇，如東歐內被皮條客抬起的白淨女人，如在木偶劇院尖叫的法蘭西孩子們不忘有個(gè)右耳戴金色耳環(huán)的，還有黑白反差的女影吃掉男像，就連每個(gè)從海邊吹來(lái)的風(fēng)也有名字，相比她們，存活從來(lái)暗淡無(wú)光，Sombre是法文中Sink的意思，今夜，我想讓自己的髮膚一直，沉下去，一直地，沉下去。

我想不再寫(xiě)了，因為，杜拉斯說(shuō)過(guò)：「我至今依然如故，面對這么多受苦受難的孩子，我始終保持著(zhù)同樣的神秘的距離。我自己我在寫(xiě)作，但事實(shí)上我從來(lái)就不曾寫(xiě)過(guò)，我以為在愛(ài)，但我從來(lái)也不曾愛(ài)過(guò)，我什么也沒(méi)有做，不過(guò)是站在那緊閉的門(mén)前等待罷了?！够蛘哂呻娪敖淮磉_它想表達的意義，但對於這些生存這回事，我似乎從來(lái)都不懂，說(shuō)不定，有天我會(huì )把孿生女孩的長(cháng)髮緊緊地編成細緻的法式辮子，使死亡再不能再分開(kāi)她們，索非亞謐夜的盡頭將見(jiàn)遠處之曦光，我的昨日就是沒(méi)有昨日，我的明天就是沒(méi)有明天，如果我擁有一襲颱風(fēng)，她就會(huì )稱(chēng)作瑪拉妮。

More:
http://www.grandrieux.com/
http://www.rouge.com.au/1/grandrieux.html/

這篇影評有劇透