曼哈顿1979

高楼林立的大街小巷，川流不息的人群，行色匆匆的男女，被商业气息亲密包裹着，容不得有一丝喘息的高效率节奏，纽约这座让无数人魂牵梦萦的地方，同样具有着经济蓬勃发展的城市惯有的“物质面貌”，但是它的开放、接纳和包容，多元文化潮流的汇聚和碰撞，也让无数个沉甸甸的精神种子在此生根发芽，就像踩着跷跷板过活的无数个艺术家那般，一边为生存而禁锢在乏味的三点一线的工作岗位上，一边为生活而自由惬意的汲取着灵感的闪现和迸发，别于巴黎的古典和傲娇，纽约的前卫随意，充满着更多值得挖掘的故事，它超前的现代感有着无限的魅惑，看完无敌老头才华尽显巧思布局的《曼哈顿》，对这个只在长夜漫漫的睡梦中一闪而过的城市，有了更多的向往和想法。

这部电影不带任何色彩的介入，纯粹就是一部看似带有些许年代感的黑白片，但和过往因技术不成熟只能呈现出劣质的黑白效果不同，这种画面的制造更像是艺术表现形式上的有意而为之，通过构图的讲究和精美，场景与人物之间协调的空间划分，惊为天人华丽动人的摄影技巧，加上光影特性的巧妙利用，在看似单调色彩的映衬下，丝毫没有让这座美妙的城市黯然失色，反倒更具魅力和质感，察觉不到任何瑕疵的精致和绝美，将无敌老头奔涌而至的文艺才情注入其中，立马锦上添花的为这座城市增添了一件高达上的气质外衣，无论是随意游走在街头的交流，还是悠闲的穿梭于博物馆，抑或停留在文艺气息弥漫的室内，完全就是一幅幅想要定格下来再三欣赏的经典画作。

影片一开始和电影《不夜城》有点异曲同工之妙，各式各样迷人的著名地标、建筑、街景和生活映入眼帘，抓人眼球的将观众的注意力牢牢的把握住。镜头顺而转向一家富有情调的咖啡馆，无敌艾伦式机关枪般，威力似长枪短炮的齐力发射，一贯滔滔不绝喋喋不休的对话拉开了精彩好戏的帷幕，上下嘴唇之间就像是涂了润滑剂的机械般，一直处于亢奋而精神奕奕的工作状态，听命于永不停歇的唇枪舌战，强词夺理、冷嘲热讽、得理不饶人，言辞间时而像一把尖锐犀利的刀锋伤得人毫无还击之力，时而又能一语破的精准的道破世事的真谛，转而还能兴致盎然毫不避讳的将文坛大将影坛大师抨击个底朝天或大肆的赞扬一番，而这就是无敌艾伦的一贯作风，一股浓郁知识分子流派的味道，而理智和情感之间形成的反差对比，却也因此显得异常的强烈和讽刺。

一个个宛若精灵般优雅灵动古典的音符在耳边徘徊，形象生动的丰富了人物的意向和情境的感染力，配乐极具品味的选用加之出现的时机也是这部电影被人所津津乐道的地方，就像是寂静无声蔚蓝的海面上迎来了一缕金灿灿的阳光，无不让人陶醉的投入其中。叽叽喳喳“饱读诗书”文艺范的无敌艾伦，举手投足美丽气质无处不在的梅姨，魅力四射亲和力十足让人不由为之倾慕的基顿，加上海明威漂亮稚嫩的孙女，已是实实在在的品质保证和大大的看点。沉溺于文化圈齐刷刷文青的着装打扮，不是在看展览就是在赶去博物馆的路上，开口必是名人、词藻、学问、主观思想乱飞，集体从事文字工作，打眼的书堆和打字机少不了，咖啡馆和公园果断成了爱情的革命根据地，抛开这些文艺范畴的显著特征外，这部电影的主轴其实就是一场恼人而摇摆不定的多角恋爱。

头发稀疏人到中年灵泛的艾萨克，瘦小的身板行事作风非常的文艺附体，谈吐风格永远是自我论调的狂轰乱炸般袭来，“学富五车”的架势却掩盖不住自私、傲慢、孤独、敏感等性格上的缺点，事业上不顺心爱情路上更烦心，前妻爱上了同性因而离开了自己，还要写一本揭露他们隐秘生活的书公开发行，让他懊恼担心不已。没法认真对待的小17岁的鲜肉女朋友翠西又爱自己爱得无法自拔，这时有妇之夫耶尔（好友）又将自己没法负责的情人玛丽推给了艾萨克，从一开始的话不投机半句多，到熟络后观念、思想、兴趣各方面的志同道合，自然的坠入爱河，但柔情蜜意后，善变纠结的本性展露无疑，玛丽发觉自己还爱着耶尔，而落寞孤独的艾萨克又将一手推开的翠西试图挽留。在无敌艾伦的镜头里无疑刻画出了一群再典型不过性格特征十分明显极具代表性的人物，他们看上去那么的自信、高尚和体面，但内心却又无比的脆弱、心虚和焦虑。

有种情感与理智上的微妙对比，在理智上他们可以将充斥在脑海中的学问要领得意的思想论点，还有对于爱情独到的看法，和你不间断的探讨个三天三夜，但落到自己的情感上却像个小孩子一样毫无能力的做出精准的判断、理解和选择，他们始终相信着自己的那一套，玛丽死不愿意当破坏别人家庭的第三者，和艾萨克一起过得也自在快乐，结果在耶尔变卦的追求下，让好马吃起了回头草，到头来还是满足了自己伤害了别人，艾萨克还无奈背了个黑锅。艾萨克一而再再而三的为翠西洗脑灌输给她另寻同龄新欢并实现梦想的建议，结果被甩后空虚寂寞冷的时候又想起了她，他们摇摆不定令人难以琢磨的性情和爱情观，看似荒谬无语，但他们那缺乏安定感渴望激情和欢愉的欲望，定心一想可以说也是都市里一类阶级中男女生活的形象缩影，最后艾萨克努力的挽留要赶赴伦敦学习的翠西，翠西看穿了他的心思，说出了那句正中下怀的经典语录：不是每个人都会变，你应该对人有一些信心。嘴巴从不停歇的艾萨克意味深长的沉默了。

记得片中寂寥的艾萨克对着录音机说着他生存的理由，除了为了一大堆装字母的艺术家外，借艾萨克之口无敌艾伦也深刻道出了自己对于这类人的看法：他们总爱自找麻烦，在自己一手制造的烦心事中郁郁寡欢自我纠结和苦恼，从而忘却了更大的痛苦和灾难！无疑一贯非常傲娇的点评同样也至理，突然想到了性格决定命运，命运决定人生这句俗话，事实也的确如此。看完这部电影顿时觉得爱情真是一门变幻莫测而高深困顿的学问，它既复杂多变充满了危机又生性坚贞美好，它是带刺的玫瑰也是雨后的彩虹，它会将你伤得体无完肤也会为你抚平伤口，它会是一闪而过的短暂流星，也会是坚如磐石的永恒代表，它的存在取决于很多因素，毫无疑问“我”是最重要的一块。我会永远铭记无敌和基顿一起坐到天亮，在公园里划船和热吻，两人谈笑风生的画面，必会成为最难忘的电影记忆，纽约曼哈顿在无敌老头的镜头里不失繁华也不失平静，不失犀利也不失浪漫，一座让人迷恋心醉而流连忘返的城市。

1.比安妮霍尔更好看.

2.看片头就觉得把午夜巴黎秒了,海报那个镜头出现时,伍迪的画外音,真美啊,我永远看不够啊.

对巴黎那是虚情假意,对纽约才是真爱.

3.这片和克莱默同年,梅姑演的两个角色都是抛掉男人出走的独立女性,一个为事业一个为搞拉.但她自己的婚姻维持了30多年.

演她女友那演员貌似长得有点像桑塔格?还是我先入为主了.

年轻时候演戏还没有现在那举手投足的"梅利尔腔",所以看上去很....清新....更喜欢那个时候的她,虽然鹅蛋脸确实有够突兀.

彼时看外形,就是cate blanchet型的演员吧,适合走青衣路线当不了花旦,看不到如今的九五至尊范.

4.花旦当然是戴安,初出场一身nora ephron式的小洋装,有点做作的拿腔拿调,但一颦一笑全是重型炮弹,杀伤力强的狠.

戴安到底算不算演技派真不好说,但她最经典的形象能换谁来演呢,美人就julie christie,悍妇就菲唐娜威,傻大姐就歌帝韩,索非亚罗兰负责大胸...

平胸女高知已经有多少年没有出现在伍迪片里了?当代的女演员,gweneth paltrow勉强可以装下,好像没有上过伍迪戏吧.最近的rebecca hall气质近,又太漂亮了,ellen page?还太年轻吧.

17年后,梅利尔和戴安再度同台,marvin's room里,梅姑名字当然排第1,第2位是当时还没演铁达尼的新晋串红小生,第3位才是戴安.

最后提名的是戴安.

和梅丽尔同台还能抢走提名的,印象里就这一个?

我甚至想,当1979年已经有了曼哈顿里的戴安基顿,2008年还在拍<革命之路>?是历史倒退还是反讽?

5.知识分子最让人厌的就是掉书袋,那种普天之大舍我其谁的腔调,"老子很重要很重要".

唯有自嘲才能化解,唯有自我刻薄,才能化酸臭为喜感化腐朽为谐趣,这就是伍迪的无敌杀手锏...

"你别吃那么多安定,你会得癌!""什么癌?""恩....腹腔癌吧."

如果每天听这样的笑话,和知识分子恋爱也不错嘛.

6.配乐啊配乐!格什温啊!cole porter啊!

大半夜和心仪女子在纽约无人街头遛狗,背景音乐是someone to watch over me...

这就是知识分子的浪漫.

这好像也是我看过的所有伍迪片里最浪漫的一刻.

30多年后同样的桥段出现在儿童电视剧里,

那是傻男孩finn和犹太女孩rachel,这部剧,叫做glee...

所有嫌弃glee的人们啊,你们错过了多少你们知道吗!

7.另一个惊恐的事实是,我发现戴安当年的声音十分象....马脸!

每个人都在对自己的行为辩护，为自己的行为找一个合理的借口。然后让自己相信自己的借口，之后再去说服别人相信自己的借口。
甚至有时，自己都深信了这个借口。并为此借口而行动。但这个借口是极其不理性的。甚至只是自己安慰自己的一个借口。

最开始Woody不想与年轻女孩在一起，甚至是找借口不与她做爱。
当他与Diane相遇后，与年轻女孩分手，借口是她年龄太小，以后的生活会发生很大改变。甚至连他自己都相信他们最终不会走到一起。

当Diane与他分手后，他情绪低落，安慰自己说：“没准和那个十七岁少女会有很好的结果。”直至他自己都相信这样的结果后，他去那个女孩的住处找那个女孩。认为他们真的会很好的在一起。所有这一切的起因只是因为Diane离开他之后他安慰自己心情的一个借口。而这个借口是不理性的，轻率的。甚至是不负责任的。

生活中，人们总是这样，先为自己的行为找一个借口，然后相信这个借口，再为这个借口而行动。在这个借口面前，一切不负责任，不理性，不道德，不人性的东西都因为这个借口而变得合理起来了。

人们总是为一切行为找借口，并试图相信这个借口是真的。

          “He adored New York City.” (Manhattan)Of course. Why else would Woody Allen title his film Manhattan? He makes it clear from the very beginning that this film is dedicated to the city. Seeing Midtown in black and white unfolding to the rhythm of “Rhapsody in Blue”, the audience romanticizes the city together with Allen and eagerly awaits what he has to say about the city. And then through the hustle bustle of daily street scenes of Manhattan, we hear it, “a metaphor for the decay of contemporary culture”(Manhattan).
          Before we proceed, we shall ask ourselves, what is the “contemporary culture” that Allen is referring to? The film was released in 1979 and the “Manhattan” he refers to is the one in the 70s. New York City in the 1970s was “dirty, dangerous and destitute”(Tannenbaum). Crimes were rampant around the city and Times Square was filled with hookers and drug dealers. The economic chaos and political upheaval brought by the war and Watergate rendered the city powerless in the face of crisis. It is not surprising that Allen was heartbroken, seeing his beloved city turning into a nest of crimes and drugs. While Manhattan is not Taxi Driver, which exposes the crimes of New York unreservedly and praises actions against them, that doesn’t mean Allen shies away from all the trouble the city and the society is in. He turns it, instead, into a celebration of New York and the people living in it. Allen, born in Brooklyn, has spent his entire life living in the city, knowing all the bits and pieces about it. Certainly it is far from perfection, but neither is anything else. Nonetheless Allen knows that New York is a great city, and the reason is written all over Manhattan, from the stunning 59th Street Bridge at dawn to the enchanting and dark Planetarium in the American Museum of Natural History.
          The film centers on four people living in Manhattan, Isaac (played by Allen himself), Mary, Yale and Tracy. These characters embody the spirit of the city. All of them are highly educated and possess rich cultural knowledge. Cultural debates take place among them throughout the film. The most heated debate happens when Isaac meets Mary at an art fair, where Mary criticizes the photography Isaac likes as derivative and witless and praises the steel cube Isaac dislikes as textual and “has a marvelous kind of negative capability”, which is clearly a reference to John Keats. These polished critiques of art clearly reflects their knowledge and insight in art. Thanks to the city’s inexhaustible amount of cultural institutions, numerous scenes in the film take place in museums, art galleries and special art exhibits, which allows these debates to happen. These characters themselves also work in television, book editing and universities. They are supposed to represent the intellect of this city that is famous for its huge international media conglomerates, Broadway and several of the greatest museums in the world, among others. Allen himself obviously takes pride in the status of New York as one of world’s greatest cultural capitals. When Mary later says that she is from Philadelphia, believes in God and does not want to have this conversation, Isaac is confused by what Mary means by that. But we know for sure that Allen himself isn’t. From these characters, we can see how the status of New York as a cultural capital affects the way they live and shape them as who they are.
          However, apart from their glamorous appearance and fanciful cultural glossary, what is truly intriguing about those characters is the problems they each have, just as in the case of New York City. A lot of their problems have to do with their relationships and emotions. For Isaac, the fact that he is involved with a teenage girl, Tracy, bothers him greatly. Upon knowing that Tracy goes to a high school, Mary wittingly remarks that “somewhere Nabakov is smiling”, referring to the devastating relationship between Lolita and Humbert in the novel Lolita. If anything, the feelings Humbert has for Lolita, a girl much younger than his age, ruins his life almost completely. After Lolita disappears all of a sudden one day, Humbert goes on a frantic search for her that lasts years. When he finally finds her at the end, he goes on a killing spree of her abductor that ends in a disaster. Though not nearly the case of Lolita, the relationship between Isaac and Tracy is equally troublesome because of the age gap. The difference here is that Isaac keeps things under control because he knows that he might wind up in a similar situation as Humbert if he lets things go freewheeling. But at the end, feelings still get the upper hand. Yet the struggle of Isaac is the battle between his ideal and his morality. The same thing can be said about Mary, who is involved in an extra-marital relationship with Yale. She constantly repeats that she is from Philadelphia and her parents are married for 43 years and “nobody cheats at all”. This indicates her repulsion towards the nature of her relationship with Yale because she knows that “this is going nowhere” and she’s merely wasting her time. She knows that she is “young, highly intelligent and got everything going for [her]” yet she is “wasting herself on a married man”. This happens to the best of us. Regardless of how much knowledge one has or how well-to-do one is, it seems inevitable that we at some point struggle to find the right places for ourselves. This is especially true for New Yorkers in the 1970s who all of a sudden find themselves in the middle of an ailing city. Allen’s film, clearly dedicated to this city and all the problems it has, rings a bell among audiences.
          Is there anyway that these problems can be solved? Allen certainly explores some of the possibilities in this film. He has an earnest appreciation for great minds, which he constantly shows in various films. Notably, Interior is written in the style of Ingmar Bergman and Stardust Memories is a remake of Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2. There are also several references to Bergman and Fellini in Manhattan itself, showing their tremendous influence on Woody Allen. When Mary includes Ingmar Bergman in her “Academy of the Overrated”, Isaac rebuts with “Bergman? Bergman is the only genius in cinema today.” Later on, after meeting Mary’s friends at MoMA, Isaac remarks that “it’s an interesting group of people, your friends. It’s like the cast of a Fellini movie”. Apart from the apparent influence, is Allen suggesting that we should rely on them to solve our own problems? Mary doubts so, harshly criticizing that “it is the dignifying of one's own psychological and sexual hangups by attaching them to these grandiose philosophical issues”. It suggests that appreciation for the great minds is merely a hypocritical dignification of one’s own problems, but not the solution to them. In the case of Manhattan, we can see that the abundance of culture institutions and marvelous exhibits still cannot save Times Square from becoming the haven for prostitutes. Maybe art merely provides us a way to recognize or discern the problems, but fails to actually prevent them from happening.
       Allen then goes on to explore other possibilities, again through Mary’s voice. At this point we can see that while Isaac clearly represents Allen himself, Mary can be considered the “other” in his mind that constantly doubts the “self” and proposes alternative ideas. In this case, in an intimate setting at the planetarium, their heads appear as silhouettes in front of a huge bright image of Saturn. The dark images of heads seem to suggest the insignificance of their appearance at this point and the importance of their ideas instead. Mary suddenly asks Isaac fondly how many satellites of Saturn he knows, and Isaac frankly admits that he doesn’t know any. As Mary boasts that she “got a million facts on [her] fingertips”, Isaac defends himself calmly with “nothing worth knowing can be understood with the mind. Everything really valuable has to enter you through a different opening”. “Where would we be without rational thought?”, asks Mary in disbelief, to which Isaac quickly responds with “You rely too much on your brain. And the brain is the most overrated organ.” What we have here is a debate between rationality and emotionality, which has certain connections with the previous discussion regarding the great minds but is one step further. Mary, critical of the importance of great minds, relies on her own instead and emphasizes on rational thought, while Isaac suggests that rational thought cannot get us anywhere. The “different opening” Isaac talks about here must be emotions, unrelated to mind and rationality, yet makes up a huge part of our lives. Isaac, thus, may appreciate the great minds precisely for their emotional capabilities, the way they stir up feelings inside us that we might not have before. But aren’t feelings the cause of all the problems in the film to begin with? Mary describes her extra-marital relationship with Yale as “a no-win situation” and the only thing that keeps them from getting out of that dreadful situation is their feelings for each other. However, when Yale rationalizes everything and finally decides to break up with her, he becomes “depressed and confused”. It seems that rational thought cannot really help them out here, and feelings only make it worse. It has come a full circle since we started.
          Isn’t it just like New York City in the 1970s? As the fiscal crisis loomed over the city, there was really little people could do. The police couldn’t do anything about the soaring crime rates since they needed money and thus were corrupted themselves. Anyone fond of rebuilding the city’s ailing infrastructure couldn’t change the situation because people have lost their faith and started leaving, which meant that bricks and broken walls of those demolished buildings in the Bronx just lay there without redevelopment. Even the federal government refused the city’s grant for bailout. Any form of rationality wouldn’t work because nobody had the strength to take actions anymore. Emotions didn’t help either as everyone was left in a hopeless and frustrated state. So what was it, as Allen may ask, that could change the fate of the city and the Isaacs and Marys living in it?
          In 1977, Ed Koch was elected the new mayor and he might have an answer to this. He did a marvelous job pulling the city out of its nadir and the most important factor for his success might be the active restoration of hope. At one of his most iconic attempts, he spent hours riding subways and asking passengers “How am I doing?”. In order to restore hope, he used his limited funds to refurbish city streets and subways. He also made a considerable effort clearing the city’s iconic parks such as Washington Square Park and Central Park from drug dealers and broken glasses. Though not the most financially profitable conducts, these acts essentially changed people’s attitude toward the city. People once again started having hopes for the city to come back to its glory. And that’s a starting point for any significant changes since you need to believe in them first. “Nothing’s perfect,” says Yale’s wife Emily calmly after acknowledging Yale’s affair with Mary. She is supposed to be the most agonized character in the film since she is the only one being cheated, while the others are just confused about their inappropriate relationships. Yet she seems to be the calmest and most understanding one. Because she, of all people, knows what a difference it makes if you just admit that nothing is perfect and prepare to make compromises along the way. She tolerates Yale’s affair with Mary and thus she still has her marriage unbroken. Just as how the Koch administration was willing to give up some financial profits in order to reconstruct the public faith in the city. If you are willing to take a look at anywhere in the city now, especially in the Bronx, you know these compromises in the name of hope and faith paid off tremendously.
           And fortunately, that is exactly what this film is trying to do, to give us hope. Just as Tracy’s final words before leaving for London, “you gotta have a little faith in people”, followed by some astounding images of Manhattan along with “Rhapsody of Blue”, as we are once again impressed by the beauty of the Empire State Building, the Chrysler Building and the 59th Street Bridge. We can almost hear Allen whispering to our ears, “you gotta have a little faith in the city too.” Tracy cannot stay with Isaac and has to leave him for the time being, just as the city disappointed its people and was in disarray back then. But that doesn’t mean changes won’t happen. “Six months isn’t that long,” says Tracy. And we know she will be back eventually. As for the city, a decade is nowhere near the end of the world. It’s exactly because of people like Woody Allen and his Manhattan that we realize how difficult it is to be free of trouble and how little that matters when we have the right attitude, and a little faith.