女朋友1955

很难相信像你这样的女孩

会悄悄爱上我这样的男人

你拥有世界上最美的笑容

如果我能把它画下来

那我就能达到世界的最顶峰了

对你来说，罗赛塔和别的女孩没什么不一样。

所以这种形式是为了证明每个人只是每个人嚒

这也就是分切长镜头的意义？

就像你不会为你生活中的任何一位朋友分手而真心难过一样；何况电影里的人物呢

这片子绝壁让新浪潮的那帮逼们研究过了。

55年

50年代末的新浪潮

有里程碑的意义啊。

去掉对话

加强形式感

不就是马里昂巴德？

毕竟不是一天就从新现实主义到新浪潮的。

忧郁的配乐可以证明

但是如果你和我在一起

我确信我们之中会有一个不开心的

安东的台词一直都是顶好的。

他透露出buxiangqu送她的表情

而他最终也没有按时来

而是在暗中观察。

人的这种纠结（要与不要）

被表现得淋漓尽致。

《龙虾》

最后那个想说话的新人

为全篇做了最好的总结。

“9月底，平原的夜来的十分轻巧，车前灯不经意亮起时，白天就结束了。”这个迷人的开头，出自安东尼奥尼的短篇，《不曾存在的爱情故事》。文字薄暮似的轻，美好，却不同于电影的的感觉。前几日看他的《女朋友》，又一部现世感很强的片子。意大利人拍中产阶级的日子，总是来的真实生动。将那些剧作家、画家或演员的苦恼和矛盾讲述的十分有看头。 克莉娅从罗马回到家乡都灵。在外工作的这些年，她凭着聪明勤奋过上了好日子，如今正筹备自己即将开张的服装店。旅馆里隔壁房间的女孩罗塞塔自杀未遂，因这次事故克莉娅与她和其友人莫妮卡相识。罗塞塔痛苦的来源，是对不得志的画家劳伦佐的爱恋，可劳伦佐已婚，其同是艺术家的妻子才华更甚，且坚强隐忍。莫妮卡年长些，见惯了风月虚荣，现与丈夫分居，过着半开放的生活。 劳伦佐这个人有意思，才华尚可，机遇有限，心胸更惨。将婚姻当作白开水，以灵感的名义勾引迷住他的女孩，一面还不忘束缚妻子施展的空间，并嫉妒着她的成功。但这样的男人自是不缺乏对生活的思考，在阅历尚少的女孩子面前，施展自己失败者的处世智慧，让她们对他折服并信赖。在已相熟相知的妻子面前又显得颓废可怜，让人难以狠心离开。当妻子得知他的情事，忍痛离去追寻梦想时，他怒且颓丧，并且对追上来想关心他的情人说出了一句最真实的话，我不需要任何人。其实他真正需要的是成功，是掩盖他狭隘和怯懦的成功，一个女人单纯美好的力量太单薄，照不亮男人心底的大黑洞。看来古今中外都不缺这类狗屁的诗人艺术家。他们既不会活在真正的底层，又上不到自以为的高处，最后连真情都丢失了，过着可悲可怜的日子，心里清楚，希望再也不会真正出现了。 与其对比最强烈的，就是女主角克莉娅了。对生活的追寻让她从骨子里美丽优雅起来，但并未让她失去原有的真挚。与自己服装店建筑师的助手卡罗相识，心生爱慕，勇敢表白。可男人却拒绝了这位让自己心动的女人，理由也不难理解——地位差距触动了男人敏感的自尊心。选择这有些含糊的自尊，舍弃真爱的能力，这其实是无可厚非的，只是让当事人和旁观者都慨叹一场。 克莉娅对萍水相逢的罗塞塔有好感，更是因为，女孩还没有完全卷进上流社会的漩涡，会为自己的爱人苦恼。她自己也是这样的人，虽然成熟很多。她本能的呵护着女孩，看清了她前方的危险，担心着，可最终没能阻止悲剧的发生。在罗塞塔跳河自杀后，她悲痛甚至情绪失控，指责推波助澜的莫妮卡，就像指责人性的虚伪，并为自己也无法释怀的真情哀悼。 女人太容易在感情中迷失自我。不论是清醒坚强的画家妻子妮妮，还是半混沌单纯的罗塞塔，都在为一个不值得她们去爱的男人耗费自己的生命。一个是还存在着对未来美好的憧憬，另一个是看清了，心冷了，却还是留下，“ 也许是付出太多了吧”，一句话含着多少无奈。每个人对抗生命中的苦与孤独，会选择不同的方式，有人将全部激情投放在所热爱的事业上，有人选择去建设多方的生活质量，更是有人选择去爱。可人与人之间的关系太不稳固，心中若没有真正的信念去支撑，到头来的爱只会变得愈加虚幻。而就算再笃定，人的神性不会随人一生，时常会有缺失的时候，信念也需要有实体的寄托方式，需要将爱扩大到足以支撑真正的生活。直面生活的喜悦和悲，并去努力释怀，就如这时节的夜晚，虽有微寒，但沉醉依旧。安东尼奥尼的这部片子之所以真是并吸引人，也是因为其中既有对真爱的追求，亦有失去、有恐慌、有无奈，有人春暖花开之后的春夏秋冬。 喜欢这部片子里女人们内敛的穿着。过膝长风衣，深色的小高跟鞋，迈着优雅舒缓的步子走来，有着自信和应对生活的智慧，小腿及脚踝煞是好看。不过最年轻的罗塞塔高挑灵巧，只有她穿的是平底鞋，似是生命还没有雕琢过的状态。

Antonioni’s fourth feature, LE AMICHE (“The Girlfriends”) corrals five well-to-do young women in Turin, in the center is Clelia (Rossi Drago), who returns from Rome to her hometown to open a fashion salon branch, strikes up friendship with Momina (Furneaux), a divorced socialite, albeit they first meet under the misfortunate occurrence of a suicide attempt fro Momina’s friend Rosetta (Fischer), anyway, the latter survives, and it turns out, she is infatuated with a painter named Lorenzo (Ferzetti), whose companion is their common friend Nene (Cortese), a talented sculptress, also in the fold is the flirtatious Mariella (Pancani).

Rosetta’s defeatist dysphoria does not bid well for her declaration of love to Lorenzo, but it is Nene’s philosophical consideration is more empathetic and precious for a woman doesn’t luxuriate in spite or vengeance for losing her man to her friend, only that judicious impression is smashed to smithereens in the next chapter, when Lorenzo, in the wake of a tragedy he should at least partially answer for, begs for forgiveness, Nene relents and takes this feckless man back, even if it means she has to sacrifice her budding career to allay a man’s bruised ego, a backward-looking woman who prioritizes her man over everything else, surely will do that, and be capable of sweeping his demerits under the rug, but through Cortese’s pathos-driven affection and resignation, Nene comes off more than that, she is a composite of contradictions, that is quite a defining character to pin down, in both men and women alike. Ferzetti’s Lorenzo, on the other hand, is a ball of frustration, anxiety and ill temper, it is not at all palatable to see him get away with his self-involved narcissism.

Momina is completely a different kettle of fish, who does not decline frolics from Cesare (Fabrizi), an acquaintance she befriends through Clelia, yet, if her ex-husband beckons, she is smart enough not to be tied up to one tree only, and her cynical attitude also rubs off on a susceptible Rosetta, Antonioni doesn’t shy away from the discordance among female friends, only, it is always man-oriented, that certainly betrays and is pertinent to the story’s ‘50s temporality, but a bit of foresight might leaven the magic here.

As for a fancy-free Clelia, fetchingly played by a self-possessed Drago reminiscent of Ingrid Bergman’s high-toned elegance, inexorably she falls under the spell of a handsome Carlo (Manni), whose working-class backdrop differs from hers, and tentatively, she tries to sort out her feelings and propose a future with him, but being a career woman who tries not to be defined by marriage, or the man she marries, she thinks better of it when a new occupational perspective opens up, Antonioni might not above to break the class barrier, but highlighting Clelia as the opposite of both Rosetta and Nene in terms of their attitude towards the stronger sex, shows that the progress has taken its pace.

While the interpersonal drama and narrative-heavy structure is not Antonioni’s forte, his keen sense of fashion, natural landscape (a beach side outing shows up the cracks of their little clique) and patient observation and compositional fluidity of his camerawork can all be espied in this neorealism lodestone that luminously throws light on the changing mores of womanhood.

referential entries: Antonioni’s STORY OF A LOVE AFFAIR (1950, 6.0/10), IL GRIDO (1957, 7.2/10); Federico Fellini’s THE WHITE SHEIK (1952, 7.5/10).