深锁春光一院愁

Douglas Sirk once said: “This is the dialectic—there is a very short distance between high art and trash, and trash that contains an element of craziness is by this very quality nearer to art.” When All That Heaven Allows was released by Universal Pictures in 1955, it was just another critically unnoticed Hollywood genre product, designed to appeal to the trashy “women’s weepie” audience. Now, in retrospect, it is considered to be closer to the art side of Sirk’s dialectic, and one of his key films. But this is part of a wider process of critical reevaluation in which his entire body of work has been rediscovered and reappraised by successive generations of filmmakers and historians.

No one seeing the film at the time of its release would have imagined its director to be an elegant, extremely erudite European whose career started in the theater of Weimar Germany and who was an early director of Bertolt Brecht’s The Threepenny Opera. After a short but successful career at UFA studios in the vacuum left by the massive emigration of Jewish talent after the Nazis came to power in 1933, Sirk made his way to Hollywood, directing his first film there in 1942. Following an unsuccessful attempt to return to Germany in 1949–50, he signed a contract with Universal. His movie career then culminated with his highest-profile films, the melodramas of 1952–58. By 1959, he was Universal’s most successful director. At that very moment, he left moviemaking and America. Until his death in 1987, he and his wife, Hilde, lived in Lugano, Switzerland.

All That Heaven Allows marks the final turning point in Sirk’s strange and varied career. On the back of Magnificent Obsession’s success the previous year, Universal gave him a budget and freedom that enabled his mature style to blossom. All That Heaven Allows contains all the elements of characteristically Sirkian composition: light, shade, color, and camera angles combine with his trademark use of mirrors to break up the surface of the screen. Here are all the components of the “melodramatic” style on which Sirk’s critical reputation is based and that has made him the favorite of later generations of filmmakers, from Rainer Werner Fassbinder to Quentin Tarantino, from John Waters to Pedro Almodóvar.

But at the time, Universal was just anxious to repeat its successful pairing of Jane Wyman and Rock Hudson in a romance between an older woman and an extremely handsome younger man. Wyman was still a big star but, by then, past her prime. Recently divorced from Ronald Reagan, and aware that her future lay with the soap-opera audience, she was pleased to be teamed with Hudson again. At the time, he was the new Hollywood heartthrob, who, although “out of the closet” in his personal life, had to be continually shut back in publicly and professionally by an anxious studio.

The All That Heaven Allows version of the May-September romance formula has Wyman playing Cary Scott, a well-to-do widow with two college-age children and a dull social life at the country club. The emptiness at the heart of her existence is filled when she meets Ron Kirby, the young gardener–turned–tree farmer who prunes the trees that line her all-American suburban yard—and then comes back to court her. This simple love story is disrupted by the vicious snobbery of her children and high-society acquaintances. Early in the film, Cary is at her dressing table, preparing for an evening with the Stoningham “elite.” To one side stands a vase containing the branches Ron cut for her earlier, so that Cary’s awakening interest in him carries over from the previous sequence. In a beautifully composed shot, the children first appear reflected in the mirror, coming between Cary and the vase, and then, as the camera pulls away, she is taken back into the room and toward the children. This one shot tells the story of the dilemma that Cary will face for the rest of the film and is typical of Sirk’s emblematic, economical use of cinema. His stars’ performances mesh well with this style. He gives them the screen space appropriate for their status, but the sexual charge between Cary and Ron is articulated through looks and gestures, and the roller-coaster highs and lows of their love are displaced onto the things that surround them.

Objects play their own significant part in expressing the emotions blocked by convention in small-town, middle-class 1950s America. Sirk creates a cinema in which the screen itself speaks more articulately than the protagonists, tongue-tied as they are by the codes of their fictional setting, the powers of censorship in Hollywood at the time, and the norms of the family melodrama genre. Out of these constraints, Sirk builds his film, while also using a typically melodramatic score to punctuate points and to accompany the tones and textures of the actors’ voices.

Years after their initial dismissal (and sometimes derision) by reviewers, Sirk’s successful string of big-budget soapers (and the director himself) have acquired a rich and complex critical afterlife, as different aspects and facets of the films have been reclaimed by successive phases of film criticism. For the auteurists and structuralists of the 1960s, Sirk’s mastery of cinematic language transcended the working conditions of the Hollywood studio system; feminists reclaimed him as a director of melodrama, with his women protagonists and dramas of interiority, domestic space, and sexual desire; gay critics today see a camp subtext in his films with Hudson, in which ambiguous situations can be read as double entendre.

The gap between the contemporary perception of All That Heaven Allows and that of the later critics is closed by Sirk himself, who once explained the conditions of work at the studio: “At least I was allowed to work on the material—so that I restructured to some extent some of the rather impossible scripts of the films I had to direct. Of course, I had to go by the rules, avoid experiments, stick to family fare, have ‘happy endings,’ and so on. Universal didn’t interfere with either my camera work or my cutting—which meant a lot to me.” Although All That Heaven Allows does, on the face of it, have a happy ending, its “happiness” is twisted with more than a touch of Sirkian irony. This piece originally appeared in the Criterion Collection’s 2001 DVD edition of All That Heaven Allows.

Jun 10, 2014

摘自CC官网：//www.criterion.com/current/posts/96-all-that-heaven-allows-an-articulate-screen

《深锁春光一院愁》: 完成度非常高，台词设置精巧，画面色彩鲜明。 这么忧伤动人的剧情，带来的艰难与抉择堪比初三时看《罗马假日》。看了一点后意识到启发了托德海因斯的《远离天堂》。但远离天堂似乎才是现实，没有happy ending. 中产阶级妇女都爱园丁。洛克哈德森的脸简直了，完美得跟雕塑一样。这张脸自高三起一直贴在我屋子，某期《看电影》杂志里的小海报。 和《蔚蓝深海》一样，医生都扮演知心大哥的角色:因为逃避，所以头痛。你甚至比过去更加孤独。你高尚的牺牲有什么意义呢。如果他真爱我，他会来找我的。不！你要是爱他，你该去找他！You are ready for a love affair,but not for love. 要是坐在电影院大银幕前，定会在光影之中泪流满面吧。 It won't be easy时甚至想起John and Yoko. 经典台词: 有你在的地方就是家。你回家来了。 多少人都生活在平静的绝望中。 She doesnt want to make her own mind,no girl does.She wants you to make up for her. ironic:1.女儿满嘴弗洛伊德，研究社会学心理学，分析各种案例。看起来很先锋很自由，说寡妇不该被埋葬，这又不是古埃及，要活出自我，不在乎别人的想法。但到自己身上就行不通了。是个彻底的理论派。 罗恩是彻底的行动派。这是罗恩的bible吗。不，罗恩的bible就是活出自我。他从来不会让不重要的东西变得重要。活出真正的自我。安全感源于自我，无法被带走。VIP-very independent person. 2.电视机。孤独的老女人最后的避难所。只要轻轻旋转按钮，戏剧，喜剧，生活，就在你的指缝中展开。 关于什么是自私，什么是活出自我，究竟如何判定。自私不过是忠于内心的另一种表达方式。 儿女、罗恩哪个不自私呢。上一秒他们还说你自私，下一秒你无私了，你的无私就恰恰被他们的自私所利用。 鹿 很多事情答案很简单，但你要用很久才可以想明白。那不是一夜就能figure out的。

An auteur maudit of his time, German émigré Douglas Sirk's renown has been considerably reappraised with much admiration for his trademark disposition of light and color, the swelling watchability sublimated from its saccharine source material, aka. the often derogated melodrama, and affecting emotional flux elicited from his sharply tricked-out players (Rock Hudson is among the staple).

Sirk's second Wyman-Hudson vehicle, ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS, is a lean, Technicolor-fueled, frippery-free, love-overcoming-moral-prejudice romantic drama, a middle-class suburban widow Cary Scott (Wyman) gallantly accepts the marriage proposal from her much younger boyfriend Ron Kirby (Hudson), who is hailed from a different class bracket and has no ambition in pursuing affluence. What transpires in the wake of her decision trenchantly discloses the selfishness, snobbery, myopia and hypocrisy inherently pertaining to the objectionable mindset of small-town bourgeoisie. On paper, the story sounds platitudinous, but Sirk’s wow factor is, as always, his divine composition of the palette and setting, everything is undergone through a minutely preparatory process, from the impeccable cosmetic furnishing and elegant garbs of its dramatis personae, to its almost storybook environs, however, to counterpoise the richness on one’s eyes, Sirk is quite self-aware of not overreaching himself, ergo, the plot pans out in a reductive but expressively accurate manner, sansdevious routes, to sustain a vigorous lifeline that magically keeps a spectator rapt.

It goes without saying this approach often lives and dies with the performers, and in this case, it totally hits the bull-eye. Jane Wyman is a screen paragon who can yoke unperturbed grace with understated determination in a pinch, and step by step, Cary’s liberation from those fetters chained to a lonesome widow is limned through her pitch-perfect, layered felicity that it hits every right spot to accompany a viewer’s mirrored, visceral journey. Rock Hudson, a quintessential specimen of American masculinity and good looks, aptly elicits Ron’s larger-than-life symbol of perfection but at the same time, conveys his vulnerability and misery with pinpricks of impatience and disappointment, which injects a more personal note to the character.

As regards the peripheral roles,Gloria Talbott andWilliam Reynolds, who play Cary’s college-age children, both stoutly take it to themselves as the cardinal negative force impeding their mother’s new romance, with the former’s talk-the-talk, walk-the-walk turnabout and the latter’s sheer self-seeking callousness, god bless our offspring. But one’s heart easily goes with a solicitous Agnes Moorehead, who is always a pleasant sight as Cary’s matter-of-fact confidant and an effulgent Virginia Grey, radiating warmth even if she is not necessarily needed to do so.

Lastly, the purportedly compromised ending, stank with the inimical Catholic precept that one must suffer (both physically and mentally) plenty before finally gaining the reward, comes off as a fly in the ointment to wring a quasi-tearjerking effect, nonetheless, as vouched by Liszt’s timelessly enchanting Consolation No. 3 in the beginning, ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS oozes a vintage vitality in its most luscious taste, isn’t that a delight?

referential films: Sirk’s MAGNIFICENT OBSESSION (1954, 7.1/10), WRITTEN ON THE WIND (1956, 8.0/10); Rainer Werner Fassbinder’s ALI: FEAR EATS THE SOUL (1974, 8.7/10); Todd Haynes FAR FROM HEAVEN (2002, 9.2/10).

新妆宜面下朱楼，深锁春光一院愁。行到中庭数花朵，蜻蜓飞上玉搔头。

刘禹锡这首闺怨词的第二小句，被用作美国电影All That Heaven Allows的译名，尽管电影中的季节不是春天（这里大约是取美好的岁月、时光之意）。“新妆宜面”本是期待爱情的状态；而锁住女主人公的，是那庭院深深，和庭院内外的傲慢与偏见。

影片的情节初看极为老套甚至浮夸。一位上流社会富有的中年寡妇Cary，一位年轻英俊、朝气蓬勃的园丁Ron，两人的爱情遭到Cary子女、朋友的一致反对。面对世俗压力，Cary放弃了这段感情。直到关键时刻，Cary才终于决定听从自己的内心回到Ron身边……

然而道格拉斯·塞克在通俗的情节背后藏着更多的表达。

塞克式美学，有一种让人心凉的幻灭感。《深锁春光一院愁》中，Cary想放弃与Ron感情的导火索，是儿子的离家出走：“如果你要嫁给他，别指望我来看望你。”看似讲道理的女儿也认为母亲不该嫁给一个一无所有的园丁。Ron对Cary说的话其实点出了问题的本质：“他们不喜欢我，是因为我不像他们的爸爸。我不是成功的商人，不是国家的栋梁。”得知Cary解除婚约后，儿子回家了，说他即将出国，给母亲买了一台电视机——一个Cary之前就跟朋友谈论过并不感兴趣的物件。当儿子兴奋地向母亲诉说这台电视有多好的时候，他没有注意到的，是映在电视机中母亲悲怆忧愁的脸庞。这个镜头让人痛心，Cary的脸被死死框在那个年代的奢侈品——电视机里，如同囿于她所处的上流社会。儿子出国，女儿嫁人，儿子甚至要考虑卖掉母亲住的房子，这时身处大宅中的Cary，体会到一种深深的孤寂。

如同塞克在下一年拍摄的作品《苦雨恋春风》中那个“一入豪门深似海”的故事，塞克的镜头里看似表现的是上流社会豪华的住宅、华美的着装、永无尽头的宴会、奢侈的生活方式，但其中无比饱满的人物情感、层次分明的色彩、恰到好处的配乐却给人一种不真实的感觉。影片中，Cary最初坚持要让Ron见她的朋友们，带他去赴宴，希望她的“朋友们”能接纳他。宴会上人们衣冠楚楚，觥筹交错；而等待她的，却是含沙射影的嘲讽与旧日曾追随她不成的男人的调戏。Ron并不会因为换上一身西装就被接纳；两人最终离开了熙熙攘攘的人群。与周围的吵闹声不匹配的，是两人深深的失望与孤独，和观众可以解读得出的隔阂。来自德国的塞克，此时营造出其同胞布莱希特提出的间离效果。如同Ron是Cary朋友圈子的局外人，我们也成为了局外人，旁观影片中纷纷攘攘人群的精神世界。

无怪乎塞克的影片被认为带有某种辛辣的讽刺性。他将一群人拍得尽可能华美，目的却不是为了赞美。《苦雨恋春风》中的Lucy，《深锁春光一院愁》中的Cary，都是贵妇人的角色，只是处在人生的不同阶段。她们的本意没有错，要对自己的家庭负责任；但是各种因素却将不应有的重负压在她们身上。Lucy的丈夫因为生育问题终日酗酒，但是她仍对其富有耐心不离不弃，直到Lucy好不容易怀孕后却又怀疑孩子不是他的，一巴掌将她打流产；Cary的儿女赞成守寡的母亲嫁人，但却必须要嫁给他们认为社会地位与其相匹配的对象，否则便粗暴地加以反对，只顾自己的面子，丝毫不顾母亲的感受。某种程度上，她们的善良被“利用”了，成为了他人自私行为的牺牲品。而两人最终的结局，都是离开了原有的家。两部影片中洛克·哈德森都扮演了“拯救者”式的角色，他来自普通家庭、做着普通的工作，他让女主角离开旧生活，和他一起开始一段全新的征程。

但是塞克的讽刺不是恶毒的，而是充满着关怀与希望。与其说他在批判上流社会的精神面貌，抑或世俗偏见对女性造成的伤害，倒不如说他在反思如何走出困境。阶级偏见、性别偏见要消除谈何容易，正因此，有人说《深锁春光一院愁》的结局过于理想化。但我以为，这正说明了塞克的乐观态度和他对人性、对爱的信任。影片中，女儿最终向母亲道歉，这是一种和解。塞克的目的，并不在说明上流社会的一切都是恶的；他描绘的，是有时表面的浮华遮蔽了人们的双眼，而事实上传统的阶级与性别偏见不应成为精神富足与幸福的障碍。

影片从金色的深秋到银白的冬季，色彩十分迷人。在我看来主人公的着装也富有暗示。Cary和Ron感情在正轨的时候，Ron穿的都是红色的衣服（准确说是红黑格子）；两人面临压力处于分手边缘的时候，他的衣着颜色明显变深变暗。等到又有转机（圣诞相遇），他又穿上了红衣。另外，Cary女儿回来告诉母亲她要结婚的时候，穿的是一条红裙，与黑色着装满怀心事的憔悴母亲形成了鲜明对比，让人想起Cary影片开头阶段穿的红色礼服——那时她还没有经历这一切，尚且神采奕奕。从亮色到暗色，隐喻着因为爱情遭受的世俗偏见带给Cary的折磨。

影片结尾，Cary守护在昏迷的Ron床前。Ron醒来，说你回家了？Cary说是的，亲爱的，我回家了。落地窗外，是白色的雪与凝视他们的鹿。电视锁住了心，窗子却打开心看向外面的世界。

“我回家了”，她终于让Ron的家成为她的归宿；她说的是“回来”，这是内心、爱情、精神意义上的“回来”；这个结尾，我愿将其视作塞克的明亮希望。

（原写于2016年7月，作了一些修改与整理。）