无可救药爱上你2002

无可救药爱上你
 
可以再次欣赏到格温妮丝古典式美女的气质与风采，又是与浓厚的文学有关，特别是诗歌。
我对于那个美国人还不是很熟，不过，他拥有连男人都为之着迷的眼神，是不很成熟的男人。
 
于是，我想起来《时时刻刻》里那个扮演弗吉尼亚的女人，以及从她当时口里说出来的诗句。
 
淡黄色的头发卷成希腊古典的发式，雪白的高领毛衣，深色的纯毛围巾，还有那种拉丁气息的爱恋，自由而浪漫，发自内心……
很忧郁伤感的眼神，的确是。
 
现代的人根本无法了解诗歌，无法亲近书籍。因为社会的节奏，因为网络，因为现实。
 
我难以想象在西方社会那个19世纪、20世纪，人们是怎么样去追逐自由的，那种情感上，或是保守，或是自由奔放。完全没有制约和教条的爱恋。是我们这个社会所无法触及的纯净。
 
一切似乎都是在上帝的保佑下进行着。有着自己的节奏，有着自己的空间，而我们现在的教育却在告诉我们，他们那个时代是怎么样的剥削，怎么样的压迫，怎么样的资本主义，怎么样的虚伪，怎么样的等级阶级。
 
我现在确信我们在一个落后的时代了，所有的矜持与奔放都是这个时代所无法时限的。
这个社会是顾及那些不一样的人的空间的，压缩的人群只有在前方才能找到出路，而作为人，到底是为了什么生存呢？
 
就是为了有大把的金钱，大把的权势，靠近海岸却不适合居住的别墅，那些值得炫耀的事迹嘛。
 
有多少人有自己想做的事，爱自己现在做的事情，而不要跟我争论你现在是情非得已。哦，这样的话是我以前安慰自己的语言。
 
其实，我也只不过因为一部表现19世纪一个优秀诗人波折的爱情故事而感慨。
那好吧，你看我，一旦想说点什么是根本无法节制的不是吗？
 
总之，我觉得格温妮丝在这部戏里很放松，因为她的笑容很让人觉得亲切。而那个美国人，也许是叫杰瑞米的这个家伙，我觉得他比较适合去演杀手，军人，而不是一个文学系的研究生。

在当时来说，女人的朴实和善解人意跟男人的狂热与至诚来说，都足以让人信服。似乎所有的爱情剧都是以两个人的亲密接触而进行下去的。所以，恋爱中的人们，就最好多多的相互沟通，彼此接触，是现实的，而不是仅仅通通话，聊聊天而已。
 
很兴奋，我终于了解到这一点。因为健康的形象，生动幽默的言辞更容易打动一个人，而不是彼此在两个世界里相互想象与揣摩。在这一点上，我承认西方人是浪漫的，充满的爱与美的自由与放纵。在两性间的碰撞，是相互对等地的渴求着。
 
片子在回顾重现过去的同时，两个在现实中彼此具有好感的年轻人也在建立他们的感情通道。
 
算了，鬼会喜欢这类的片子，这部2002年在当时都没人关注的片子，注定会沉入时间的长河里，也同样在我的记忆里湮灭。
 
但是，我始终觉得那个男人是德国人。
时间这个东西在网络里显得太不起眼了。
格温妮丝的嘴角纹线的确是优美。似乎她的片子中总会有优雅的举动。

看Possession的中文版小说，断断续续的看了一半，因为晦涩的诗词而不得不停顿，无意中发现电影版，便迫不及待的拿来欣赏

其实就是一段婚外恋，难道因为它是真爱所以就美好，就值得被同情？
对妻子的爱是责任，对情人的爱是激情，统统冠以爱的名义。

爱太泛滥。

我最爱不起的男人就是对这妻子说我不会和你离婚的，你是我的的责任，我会照顾你一生，然后转头对着情人说，我跟我老婆没有爱情，就只有亲情，我的心都在你身上，但是我不能抛弃一路甘苦与共的糟糠之妻。说穿了这种男人就是一个自私鬼，两手都要抓还要向世界要同情。

只是不明白为什么女人都容易沉浸在自己编织的美好里，自欺欺人的去相信自己是那个独一无二的存在，还傻傻的为男人寻找各种借口。

想要两全的终不能两全，忧伤带出来的感动和美好倒是能赚足一大把的眼泪。

    Possession: a romance is often considered as a complex suspense novel regarding history of literature and love. The story starts with a twentieth century dead-in-wood scholar Roland who spends all his time studying a poet Ash from the nineteenth century. It appears at the beginning of the novel that this book focuses on the position of males, particularly Roland and Ash, in different social background. However, new highlights are brought into the novel when Roland discovered the love letters between Ash and Christabel, another poet at that time. The author portrays Christabel and Maud Bailey, tow ladies from different times who change to fight for their freedom to discuss the roles of women through out the history, and how the talent and freedom of women was suppressed.

       Both Christabel and Maud are described in a somehow negative manner when they first appeared in the story. Roland describes the photo of Christabel as “no clear impression of anyone in particular; it was generic Victorian lady, specific shy poetess” (Byatt 44) Similarly, Maud is described as a very ordinary figure. “At first he did not identify Maud Bailey, and he himself was not in any way remarkable” (44). Thus, it can be clearly seen that both Christable and Maud were not considered stunning based on how they looked. Roland even has the impression that Maud “smelled of something ferny and sharp. Roland didn’t like her voice” (44). This shows that most people in the society didn’t appreciate women’s beauty at first sight.

     Byatt makes lots of hints and metaphor regarding the fact that people didn’t realize the talent and importance of women. Maud Bailey’s hair is blonde and metallic, a gold that might have existed before the discovery of precious metal: As she unbinds her mane "Roland saw the light rush towards it and glitter on it, the whirling mass, and Maud inside it saw a sea of gold lines, waving" (296). This represents Maud’s stunning beauty and talent; however, She wears it covered with a scarf, symbolic of repressed Victorian sexuality. Although Christabel’s hair color (like Maud’s hair and the scintillating waters of the fountain) is metamorphic in hue, we have seen that it contains pale loops of silver-gold (301). Gold – the color of charm, confidence, and power linked two women together in reflecting an essential element of their feminine nature—fertility, confident and attracting.
“Mine the bright earth
Mine the corn
Mine the gold throne
To which you’re born
Lie in my lap
Tumbled with flowers”
This is the song of the gold lady who wears a "queenly crown of gold, a filigree turret of lambent sunny gleams and glistering wires above crisping gold curls as heavy with riches as the golden fleece itself" (169). Based upon these parallels, we can conclude that in Possession, women’s wealth — their power and energy — lies in their hair. Even though Christabel’s and Maud’s beauty and power is not recognized, their natural female characters still exist and shine just like the sparkling gold lady.

The connection between Maud and Christabel serves also to connect the past to the present, the Victorian to the Post-modern. Feminism is an important aspect in each time period of the novel. Maud is a modern feminist, attempting to balance her identity as a woman with her identity as an academic scholar, and Christabel is trying to overcome her femininity by living as a recluse with another woman before she met R. H. Ash. Similarly, Maud is a withdrawn person, wary of men, and distrustful. Christabel is doing what many women of her time were doing, that is, struggling for masculine freedom in a world that was very limited for a woman. Maud is doing what many women today are attempting to do, that is, trying to reconcile and accept her femininity in an academic, typically male, environment. Byatt plays up this feminist view of literature and society by choosing to base Christabel's poetry on the strongly feminist poetry. She and Maud are living the liberated version – living on their own, being away from the secular society. These all indicate the ways that women fight against the social pressures and choose their own liberate styles to live.

          Not surprisingly, the light that gold emits cannot be covered up. Eventually, the free soul broke out and the courage pursuing liberty and love beat the fear of being different from others. Christabel and Maud both changed, as they could not reserve their true feelings anymore. In Victorian tradition, it was the man who 'owned' the woman, his wife. Yet in this modern Victorian work, that becomes twisted. When Ash attempts to 'claim' Christabel on page 308 by holding her and making love to her, the act of possession is switched around. He is trying figuratively to grasp her, and 'she was liquid moving through his grasping fingers, as though she was waves of the sea rising all round him.' He tries to take her all in, to know her, and her womanhood eludes him, as personality always will. Byatt's message seems to be that a personality cannot be taken or possessed by someone else, that individuality always remains, even in Victorian situations of female oppression and domination by males. The same love story that defines Christabel and Ash in the 1860's also describes Roland and Maud in the 1980's. Roland gradually changed his impression about Maud and found her extremely charming as a serious scholar and a beautiful independent woman. As two hearts got closer and closer, Maud finally chose to be her true self. She told Roland about her relationship with Fergus, and the reason why she reserved beauty. Then she was convinced to uncover her hair. “The segments of the plaits were like streaked and polished oval stones, celandine yellow, straw-yellow, silvery yellow, glossy with constricted life. Roland was moved—not exactly with desire, but with an obscure emotion that was partly pity, for the rigorous constriction all that mass had undergone, to be so structured into repeating patterns. If he closed his eyes and squinted, the head against the sea was crowned with knobby horns.” (291) This was how Roland felt when he saw Maud’s hair. The incomparable stunning beauty shocked Roland. “Life is so short,” said Roland. “It has a right to breathe.”(291) The courage and desire for love and freedom made them decide to give their love the right to breathe.

          Through the two love stories, sexuality is also discussed. On page 6, there is a passage on R.H. Ash's poem representing Proserpina, an ideal Greek woman, as 'gold-skinned in the gloom..grain golden… bound with golden links.' This is an example of idealized fertility and sexuality in Victorian women. It represents sexuality as something that can be conquered and possessed, like gold or grain. The suppression of sexuality in the Victorian era is a theme throughout the book, in both time periods, as is the sexual freedom that both couples eventually reach. The sexuality in Victorian society can be traced in Possession.

        Byatt successfully displays the change of the roles of women through out the history by shifting from the 1860's to the present. The romances are so similar that it is often difficult to tell which couple Byatt is writing about in any given situation. The way this romantic narrative fits both couples and time periods seems to suggest that not so much has changed, and romance from one time to another is not so different as we thought. The characters mix the old and the new; Maud wears a brooch once belonging to Christabel, and another Ash scholar, Mortimer Cropper, carries Ash's pocket watch. In the end of the novel, the last love letter written by Christabel enables Maud to finally enjoy the value of love in the present, and give her trust to Roland. The cyclical time frame of the novel provides an interesting contrast to the normal, stifling, linear time frame of typical literature and everyday life.

         Possession, a novel with lots of feminism color, does a good job in portraying two female characters from different times to call for the respect and attention for women from the society. Christabel and Maud are two respectable females who set an example for women to be who they want to be and gain respect and love they deserve.

有时间的话读一下原著吧, Byatt模仿维多利亚时代诗人Robert Browning和美国女诗人Emily Dickenson写的那些戏剧独白和短诗着实精彩, 还有浸泡着浓浓的书卷气的无比含蓄却热烈的书信,读起来浑身鸡皮疙瘩...小拜模拟人物说话写作的水平是一流的.就像她形容男主角Randolph Ash的那样, 是一伟大的ventriloquist

  On account of lacking enough time, I meant to watch this film instead of the original work. But now I determine to appreciate this book,since I believe the plot will be complete and meaty that engages me more.
  In the typical English romance, for me what the two protagnists talked with each other sounds like a song lingering on my ears.

    they say that women change
  'Tis so,
  but you are ever-constant in your changefulness
  like that still thread from the falling river,
  one from source to last embrace in the still pool
  and ever renewed,
  and ever moving on
  from first to last,
  a myriad of water droped
  and you-
  i love you for it-
  are the force that moves that holds the form

  These things are there. The garden and the tree
  The serpent and its root, the fruit of gold
  The woman in the shadow of the boughs
  The running water and the grassy space.
  They are and were there. At the old world' rim,
  In the Hesperidean grove, the fruit
  Glowed golden on eternal boughs, and there
  The dragon Ladon crisped his jewelled crest
  Scraped a gold claw and sharped a silver tooth
  And dozed and waited through eternity
  Until the tricksy hero Herakles
  Came to his depossession and the theft.
 
   Ash must be a fabulous poet who wrote such spectaculous words that really moved me. I can understand the conflict in Belly's heart. On the one hand, she loved the man who was always resisting to
admit his feeling, and longed for develop further relationship with him. On the other hand, she was scared. She was reminded of the relationship and the pathetic ending of Ash's true love, all her own love affairs and others. All love turns out to be ashes of time.
  
Even though a man's flame burns up his lover, even he makes her breath-taking, when they are confronted with the fierce reality, they have to choose to sacrifice or make a compromise.

去年十月读的小说，中文译本。可以想见英文原版应该很不错，毕竟仅凭作者对维多利亚时期诗歌的摹写，就应该可以打个高分了。可惜中文译本只是差强人意而已。我觉得译本最有损原著的地方，在于用词上的不协调和不谨慎，尤其在诗歌翻译上，使得全书有情节，而无意境。我自己没有做这本书的翻译，所以也不好做太多批评。翻译中的艰难，有时是读者难以想象的。尤其在诗歌体裁上。

说起来，书还是一部好书。仅情节一条，就可以给个高分。当代小说着眼学术研究的，并不多。对学术研究，尤其是文学研究中的种种弊端，了解的人就并不多见，能如此隐晦、又如此辛辣地予以讽刺的文学作品，就更不多见。原书作者本人大约在此文学研究的圈子里浸濡良久，有些篇章文字可以见得其不吐不快的心情。在讽刺之外，作者以女性的角度，对感情和性别关系，无论是当下的、或是古典的，予以了深刻剖析。对比了古典世界的女性姐妹情谊（sisterhood）与现代女性的性向的多重选择，探讨了古典家庭伦理道德与现代情感选择的自由与受缚。从笔法上看，时空转换自然而不晦涩，人物关系复杂却很有条理。字里行间弥漫着十九世纪英式古典风范。难怪此书一出，便多有好评。

再来看这部电影，就连差强人意也算不上了。导演和编剧尽力保留了全书叙述的主干，却丢掉了全书的灵魂。比如，原著利用诗歌和信件做的叙述视角转换，可以在叙事的同时，强调情感上的古今大同。这一点其实完全可以以电影手法全面表现，然而实际的效果实在让人失望。让人不由觉得，导演自己本身并没有读透原著。原书的人文精神和对情感、性别关系的讨论在影片里荡然无存。甚至影片还设计了主人公对偷盗行为的津津乐道，而这正是原书作者想极力纠正的——罗兰在图书馆偷出了那封信的草稿并不假，然而之后，罗兰和莫德的每一步研究和探索，都是遵从学术规范的，作者设计的两组、甚至三组不同研究人群，正是对当下学术研究制度中不可避免的自私与肤浅的嘲笑与抨击，而到了影片这里，这反倒成了一种乐趣。实在让人不知可以说什么。另外，原书中所涉及的不同情形下，人与人之间的疏离与亲密之间的张力，在影片中也全无体会。一本深入浅出的好书，最终被拍成了两段几乎没有交集的、老套的爱情故事。

若是不看原著，仅看电影。应该可以归到诸如《真爱至上》一类的爱情小品。如此看来，应该打个尚可的分数。影片色彩明快，节奏也并不拖沓。两位女演员的表演，尤其是饰演克里斯贝的Jennifer Ehle，十分可圈可点。格温妮丝一贯的英式风范和知性自然不必提，而詹妮弗简直是个奇迹，可以在这样的剧本中，准确地再现和表达了克里斯贝刚柔兼济的人物性格。可惜克里斯贝的矛盾与踌躇无法显现，这不是演员的错，是导演和编剧的过失。可惜了这两个好演员。给这部电影三颗星，完全在詹妮弗身上。

我一直讨厌格温妮丝帕特洛，冲着Jennifer Ehle把她忍下来了，没想到还有Toby Stephens和Tom Hollander作为惊喜和囧....

Jennifer Ehle的眼睛真是太美了，当他们终于决定再次见面，穿着披风穿过人群的Christabelle如同从中世纪的油画里走出来一样，脸上神秘温柔甜蜜的笑容，害我一直质疑这个电影难道说的是中世纪的一对恋人，让我想起爱洛伊丝和阿拉贝尔，他两的相爱同样不能公开，同样“唯美”。

当然如果用天涯标准来衡量，这爱情绝不美好。伤害的人除了Christabelle的同性恋人，还有Ash的妻子。不过电影有个细节让我觉得很囧，那就是，MS Ash跟他老婆都没xx过？说什么physical 的，我搞晕了，英语太差劲了...

爱依然是美好的，我如果是Ash，也一定会一头栽死在jennifer Ehle的眼睛，和诗歌里.............

我喜欢那个结尾，Maya小朋友真太美了，英语说的那么好听，最后来一句我希望我能记得，结果真给忘了，弄的我都有点唏嘘..........

把636页的书改编成90分钟的电影，必然会造成这样的结果：节奏加快，分支人物删减，长篇累牍的文本或对话直接忽略。在有的作品里，这样的处理还尚能接受，而在有的作品里，可能就会导致剧情“看不懂”，或者魅力迅速减淡、内涵大幅丧失。比如《达芬奇密码》，主角将几个核心密码一一破解的曲折过程，本就是小说的精华所在，也是读者很享受很受吸引的部分，但是在电影中，解密就像演员赶通告一样，这个场子跑完赶紧飞奔去下一个，简直变成了跑男参加定向越野。

把小说《占有》改编成电影《无可救药爱上你》也遇到了类似的问题。电影提炼了“主要情节和线索”，一条线索发生在十九世纪中叶，一位维多利亚时代杰出诗人艾什（有妇之夫）爱上了女诗人克里斯塔贝尔，两个人却只能体验“曾经拥有”，无法享受“天长地久”；另一条线索发生在一九八六年的现代，研究艾什的研究助理罗兰，为了调查艾什的隐秘恋情，邂逅、恋上了研究克里斯塔贝尔的莫德·贝利博士。

为了剧情的合理发展，电影保留了必要的分支配角——（现代线索中）布列克艾德教授（男主罗兰的BOSS）、弗格斯·沃尔夫（女主的前男友）、克拉波尔教授（男主及BOSS的学术对头）、乔治爵士夫妇（关键信件的主人），其他则一律删去，包括男主罗兰的女友瓦尔，都人间蒸发了。而随着这些分支人物共同蒸发的，还有作品独特的味道、特殊的视角和文化厚度。

电影《无可救药爱上你》，正如这个俗气的译名所做的，将原著浓缩成了2个发生在不同时代的言情故事，加了点儿悬疑为辅料，再抹了点文艺和学术当调料。

可是，很不幸的是，原著《占有》正好是那种不怎么适合改编和浓缩的小说，因为小说遍布大量的日记、书信、学术著作、诗歌、传说，可以说，整部作品就是靠这些文本支撑起来、丰富起来的，而且每种文本都有其存在的价值和魅力，它们用不同的体裁，或陈述、或抒情、或议论、或暗喻。

在小说中，艾什和克里斯塔贝尔的故事基本就活在文本中，在不同文字资料的被发现、被重新解读中，他们的故事也串连成线，逐渐浮出水面，而一段故事在不同角色笔下（比如艾什夫人爱伦、比如克里斯塔贝尔在布列塔尼的表外甥女莎宾）的陈述，本身就很有意思。而且在这些文本中，大量文学课题也被一一抛出，比如神话传说对文学的影响，比如女权主义思潮在文学研究中的利弊等等。

其实，电影版也努力节选了一部分诗歌、信件，以还原《占有》的风格和意境，然而碍于电影的时长和形式，这种节选只能是东一鳞西一爪，浮光掠影般的，来不及领会和读懂，就嗖的一声过去了。比如，艾什和克里斯塔贝尔这两大诗人，只因为参加某次上层社会的聚会就一见钟情了吗？艾什堕入情网，难道只因为克里斯塔贝尔朝他抛了个媚眼、放了若干伏电？如果没有细读他们频繁的、长篇的信件，又怎能明白这两大高手之间的心有灵犀和惺惺相惜呢？如果没有阅读过艾什夫人爱伦琐碎平庸的日记，又怎么能比较出爱伦和克里斯塔贝尔两位女性角色根本上的不同，以及对艾什的意义呢？

《占有》这部小说为何能拿下“英语文学最高荣誉布克奖”？我们不妨先来关心一下作者是谁，作者A.S.拜厄特，和一般作家不同的是，她原来是专门研究英语文学的，她毕业于剑桥、牛津，在伦敦大学学院教文学教了10多年。所以，在《占有》中，她对文本的解读、对文学体裁的驾驭、对学术领域的透析都是熟稔、自如和深入的。她仿佛从容行走在文学的果林中，对悬挂在枝头的各种水果了然于胸，信手摘下。在《占有》之前，偶没有读到过一本小说，是建筑在类似这样的厚实地基之上的。

而电影的改编使得原著这种标志性的特征被削弱得几乎消失殆尽，实在是一种遗憾。正如中译本《占有》的腰封上对占有的解读——“爱人想要完全占有自己的所爱；研究者想要占有知识和信息；收藏者想要占有珍奇的藏品；诗人想要占有他们描绘的意象和主题”。也就是说，“占有”这个关键词，在原作中是有多重含义和指向的，然而到了电影中，占有这片小树林，被砍伐得只剩“爱人之间的占有”这棵小树苗了。

不过，必须要承认的是，电影还是有不少可取之处的，比如画面剪辑很流畅，古今之间的切换自然舒服；演员选得也无可挑剔，不管是演艾什和克里斯塔贝尔的杰瑞米·诺森和詹妮弗·艾莉（艾莉就是95年BBC版《傲慢与偏见》里的女主），还是演莫德和罗兰的格温妮丝·帕特洛和艾伦·艾克哈特（想想《莎翁情史》和《洛杉矶之战》），都和原著角色很神似，顺便说一句，连配角、克里斯塔贝尔的女伴都是《权力的游戏》里的太后瑟曦；在讲述19世纪的线索时，维多利亚时期浓浓的英国古典氛围也扑面而来。

所以，尽管它把绿茶硬生生做成了抹茶冰淇淋，不过还是一支做得相当不错的冰淇淋。