《午夜鐘聲》被認(rèn)為是莎士比亞戲劇改編的巔峰。誠然如此，威爾斯將莎翁的數(shù)部戲劇融合在了一起，并將其作品中幾乎所有主題都加入其中，最后進(jìn)行天才般的再創(chuàng)作，于是誕生了這部偉大的杰作。威爾斯得把莎士比亞讀得多么透徹才能寫出如此原汁原味的對白，才能將不同的戲劇場景拼接得天衣無縫，才能創(chuàng)造出自己的午夜鐘聲。青出于藍(lán)而勝于藍(lán)，威爾斯將莎翁作品的戲劇性，悲劇性，哲學(xué)性都提高到了新的層次。

在表演方面，威爾斯成功地塑造了福斯塔夫這樣一個亂世小丑的形象。他為了突顯人物的形象，在外表上做到了極致，巨大的身軀如同肉山一樣給人無限的壓迫感，蓬亂的白發(fā)與飽經(jīng)滄桑的臉頰相映生輝，玩世不恭的態(tài)度以及巧舌如簧的行為甚至還有些許可愛。這些元素集中于威爾斯精湛的演技上，通過他華麗的深焦攝影體現(xiàn)出來。肥胖的肉體代表著欲望的疊加與人性的墮落，對應(yīng)著花天酒地?zé)o所事事的生活以及謊話連篇的圓滑處事。

威爾斯扮演的角色都是他自我的延伸。一些角色代表了不朽的人類形象，如馬洛的浮士德博士，塞萬提斯的堂吉訶德以及莎士比亞的約翰·福斯塔夫爵士。威爾斯從他嶄露頭角的青年時代開始，就如同一個置身凡塵的上古英雄，挑戰(zhàn)人間的禁忌、法則，而其代價則往往是對上帝的藐視與冒犯(這也是他為什么也把惡魔歸于他人性一面的原因)。他心目中最早的英雄是浮士德的后代，一批自大的、有著狂熱幻想的魔鬼。就像威爾斯自己一樣，他們橫空出世，卻又很快墮入命運(yùn)的深淵。后來，一系列職業(yè)生涯上的受阻和失望，或是渴望得到憐憫和重整旗鼓的機(jī)會，使他變得小心翼翼，謙卑恭順。在扮演福斯塔夫爵士的時候，他宣稱這個角色濃縮了一種原初的、尚未得到賞識的美德。這種對一個老酒徒的過分神化，使得他輕易地忽略了福斯塔夫的貪婪和道德淪喪的一面。難道威爾斯自己也是一個悲劇性英雄，被自己的狂妄自大所擊倒；抑或應(yīng)該把他看作一個喜劇人物，因為一個小小的缺陷而變得萎靡不振？

攝影方面還是威爾斯標(biāo)志性的深焦攝影，光影舞動間平面的影像仿佛獲得了立體感，跳動的攝影機(jī)好似有了生命通過屏幕與觀眾對話。為了體現(xiàn)莎翁劇的戲劇性威爾斯放棄了他的殺手锏長鏡頭，而采用多機(jī)位跳切以加深影像的沖突感。在人物對話時至少有幾十個機(jī)位來回切換，普通的正反打在多視角的切換中具有了無限的可能性，人物關(guān)系與機(jī)位變化相得益彰，共同為情節(jié)服務(wù)。總之，威爾斯的機(jī)位只有你想不到的，沒有他拍不到的。其中最為精彩的戰(zhàn)爭戲借用畫面構(gòu)圖的角度與低機(jī)位特寫快速剪輯將幾十個人的戰(zhàn)斗拍出了千軍萬馬的氣勢，而如今的好萊塢大片用上億的特效也不過如此。

權(quán)利的誘惑是電影的主線，威爾斯用了大段的篇幅來做鋪墊，為了在結(jié)尾達(dá)到高潮。亨利四世用盡手段奪得了王位，但是兒子卻不學(xué)無術(shù)整天和福斯塔夫混在一起，胸?zé)o大志，而福斯塔夫想要巴結(jié)王子以圖日后發(fā)達(dá)。他們總是開著玩笑諷刺對方，但也只是玩笑，從來不會放在心上。面對父親的失望，兒子也想為自己爭光，于是帶兵鎮(zhèn)壓了叛亂。在權(quán)利與榮譽(yù)的染指下，他漸漸被這些誘惑迷住了雙眼，再也找不回曾經(jīng)與福斯塔夫那些"下等人"一起玩笑的自己。權(quán)利的誘惑能夠蠱惑人心，亨利四世病危在床仍然不忘讓人把皇冠放在枕邊，兒子看見這金光閃閃的皇冠不假思索地便戴在了自己的頭上，"名正言順"地繼承了王位，亨利五世誕生了。落魄的福斯塔夫聽聞這個消息激動不已，認(rèn)為作為昔日的好友一定會連帶沾光，誰知當(dāng)他滿懷期待地找到亨利五世的時候，卻被他無情地放逐。他跪倒在地一言不發(fā)，臉上從憤怒到不解最后漏出欣慰的笑容，這是對好友終于登基的驕傲與祝福，也是對世道人心變遷的感慨與無奈。

在權(quán)利的誘惑以及內(nèi)心無限欲望的驅(qū)使下，曾經(jīng)的那份初心早已不在，這是騎士精神的消亡，更是時代終結(jié)的悲歌。福斯塔夫還妄想著亨利五世是因為在眾人面前做樣子才這么做的，晚上一定會再請他單獨見面，直到午夜的鐘聲敲響，他終于明白已是曲終人散。在大遠(yuǎn)景中福斯塔夫走進(jìn)了最下角的小門，淡出了這個不屬于他的時代。

"你們不曾見過我們所見的"，是啊，曾經(jīng)的一切已經(jīng)隨風(fēng)飄散，午夜的鐘聲已經(jīng)敲響，紀(jì)念這永遠(yuǎn)回不來的曾經(jīng)。

很多人都愿意相信，人與人之間的距離是忽遠(yuǎn)忽近的，其中的遠(yuǎn)近來源于一個人與另一個人的社會地位，當(dāng)兩個人的社會地位持平的時候，他們之間可以形影不離，然而當(dāng)一個人的社會地位發(fā)生變化，兩個人之間的社會地位有了差距，且差距越來越大，這種人與人之間的距離也就越來越遠(yuǎn)。當(dāng)我們回頭去看之前的朋友的時候，不難發(fā)現(xiàn)，最終留下來的究竟是誰，又有誰早已經(jīng)離我們遠(yuǎn)去。

生活的真相有時候就是這么殘酷，殘酷到它可以改變一個人的心境。今天給大家推薦的影片說的就是這樣的道理，雖然不適用每一個人，但也是一種客觀存在著的道理。

影片《午夜鐘聲》講述的是原本一對好朋友最終分道揚(yáng)鑣的故事，英國國王亨利四世的王子整天跟自己的好友夫斯塔夫混在一起，夫斯塔夫是一個喜歡吹牛卻從來沒有任何的高超本領(lǐng)的人，雖然如此，王子并不以為然。然而夫斯塔夫在跟王子交上朋友后卻越發(fā)的驕橫了，他一邊向亨利四世進(jìn)讒言說王子打仗不利，將所有的功勞歸功于自己，另一方面，在王子跟前，他繼續(xù)扮演著滑稽的角色來鞏固自己的地位，并對此洋洋自得。

然而這樣的好事情并不能持久，王子最終繼位了，亨利四世死后，王子毫無爭議地成為了亨利五世。夫斯塔夫這個時候覺得自己一定可以加官進(jìn)爵，然而王子早就知道了這個昔日的好友的種種行為，于是，兩個人的地位發(fā)生了本質(zhì)的變化后，友誼也就不復(fù)存在了。夫斯塔夫郁郁而終，王子雖然感慨失去了一個好友，但并沒有太過于悲傷。原因就在于他認(rèn)定了夫斯塔夫究竟是一個什么樣的人。

《午夜鐘聲》為我們講述的是一種精神的凋敝，當(dāng)然，我國的觀眾對于這種精神的了解甚少，這很正常，因為騎士精神并不是國內(nèi)的文化，而是一個舶來品，當(dāng)我們談?wù)撍^的騎士精神的時候，莫過于外國人對于武俠的解構(gòu)是一樣的。那么在本片中的騎士精神究竟是什么精神呢？

我們可以看看夫斯塔夫的對立面就能知道。夫斯塔夫是一個武士，他本應(yīng)該做什么但卻沒做什么，他本應(yīng)該不做什么，但卻做了什么。這樣去理一理，觀眾自然就能知道什么才是騎士精神。

當(dāng)王子一行人遭遇到了危機(jī)的時候，夫斯塔夫抵抗了嗎？沒有，他本應(yīng)該去抵抗的，然而卻為了自己能順利逃脫而“奔走”。當(dāng)危機(jī)過去，本應(yīng)該如實匯報所有的戰(zhàn)況的夫斯塔夫更是將功勞全部攬在自己身上，實際上他在遇見敵人的時候唯一想到的就是逃跑。因此，英勇作戰(zhàn)的形象在夫斯塔夫這里顯得很滑稽，我們這個時候就可以說夫斯塔夫簡直是騎士精神的反面教材。因而也就了解了真正的騎士精神究竟是什么。

創(chuàng)作者一再用夫斯塔夫的形象來解構(gòu)騎士精神已經(jīng)不復(fù)存在的現(xiàn)實，為的就是要讓我們明白一個道理，騎士精神不復(fù)存在的原因在于王朝的權(quán)力階層們的爾虞我詐。原本一就是一，二就是二的現(xiàn)實狀況已經(jīng)不復(fù)存在了，留下來的就是我們所看到的夫斯塔夫這樣的混日子的武士。他們積極改變自身的“騎士精神”為的不過是在變化著的世界中能有自己的棲息地。

毫無疑問，夫斯塔夫就是一個跳梁小丑，然而這個跳梁小丑的存在并不是自己主動的選擇，而是因為時代的變幻而做出來的一些適應(yīng)變化的舉動所構(gòu)成的。夫斯塔夫的目的就是為了生存，而生存對于他來說代表著活著，他縱然是滑稽如小丑一般的人物，然而跟王子交朋友并沒有讓夫斯塔夫感覺到一步登天，王子只將它當(dāng)作一個可以玩樂的工具。

夫斯塔夫明白這其中的道理，因此，他肆意的污蔑別人，為的就是能讓自己在權(quán)力的更迭中留住小命，且達(dá)到求生。

這世界并不止一種騎士精神，夫斯塔夫這樣的人不在少數(shù)，每一個波瀾壯闊的時代都有可能產(chǎn)生一種與這個時代相輝映的精神，而當(dāng)這個時代逐漸的落幕的時候，這種精神自然而然地就會凋敝。夫斯塔夫是一個代表，他代表了可以在時代發(fā)生更迭的時候，試圖登上逃生的船只的人們的一種理念，當(dāng)然，這種理念并不是正確的，但也算是眾生相中的一種客觀存在的。我們無法忽視。

至于說王子在繼位后對于夫斯塔夫的情感我們也能理解，當(dāng)權(quán)力發(fā)生更迭，我們曾經(jīng)所擁有的一切就會發(fā)生本質(zhì)的改變，這種本質(zhì)的改變最終會影響到關(guān)鍵性的選擇，而夫斯塔夫顯然不在王子的關(guān)鍵性選擇之內(nèi)，即使是他沒有道德敗壞，王子依舊是不愿意跟這樣的人繼續(xù)廝混的。因為兩個人的地位發(fā)生了改變。國王永遠(yuǎn)不會跟武士成為朋友，夫斯塔夫的夢醒了一半。

……

你好，再見

最近看到午夜鐘聲的字幕被人上傳到字幕站了，就稍微說說吧:

我是本片的(部分)譯者，當(dāng)初翻譯這部片子時群里在搞電影節(jié)（大概是2020年春天)，出于對奧遜威爾斯先生的敬愛就接下來了翻譯這部鴻篇巨制的任務(wù)。

其實接之前就預(yù)想過會很難翻譯，但是沒想到會那么難翻譯。奧胖對于莎翁的通讀基本到了一個境界，他的改編沒有用白話文演繹，也沒有整段整段的照搬原文，而是簡練得將莎翁的五本戲劇編排在了一起，保留了那些華麗的詞藻和，剔除了冗長的戲劇式自述來使它更加電影。一個角色的兩句臺詞是他實際段落的開頭和結(jié)尾，兩個連續(xù)的橋段來自兩本戲劇，這樣的情況在這部電影中比比皆是。最夸張的是，不知道有沒有記錯，有一場戲A的對白出自一本戲劇，B的回答就出自另一本。

我翻譯的時候主要的參考文獻(xiàn)是nofear（一個幫助讀莎士比亞的英文網(wǎng)站）和朱生豪先生的中文譯本。因為有著上述的情況，翻譯起來真的很困難，基本要一句話一句話放到谷歌里去搜才能搞明白那些古英文到底是什么意思，找中文譯本就更加麻煩了。而且就我翻譯的段落里，很多地方兩份文獻(xiàn)也存在著巨大的誤差，權(quán)衡下來我的選擇基本是相信nofear的解釋來修改朱老的譯本。

因為實在翻譯不下去，所以戰(zhàn)爭后的部分我交給了@帽子里的兔子 老師去翻譯。這里還有一個交流問題，我翻譯的部分是中英對照的，而他翻譯的部分刪除了英文只留下了中文，不過當(dāng)時也只是為了內(nèi)部交流所用，就沒太在意這一點。大概在全部翻譯完之后我全片看了一遍，稍微修改了一下以確保邏輯通順后就發(fā)在群里內(nèi)部傳閱。原本打算拜托一位老師精校后再發(fā)布出來，但后來也沒了下文，結(jié)果最近不知怎么的就被上傳了也是很迷惑。

既然這個字幕已經(jīng)被上傳了那大家想看就看吧，內(nèi)容上有什么問題可以跟我指出，真要罵的話也來罵我吧不要去罵兔師，畢竟是我找他幫忙的。我也會盡量在有生之年（找人）搞出一版精校版字幕來方便大家觀看，如果有哪位大神愿意做這個就再好不過了。

June 4, 2006 |Roger Ebert

There live not three good men unhanged in England. And one of them is fat and grows old.

How can it be that there is an Orson Wellesmasterpiece that remains all but unseen? I refer not to incomplete or abandoned projects that have gathered legends, but to "Chimes at Midnight" (1965), his film about Falstaff, which has survived in acceptable prints and is ripe for restoration. I saw the film in early 1968, put it on my list of that year's best films, saw it again on 16mm in a Welles class I taught, and then could not see it for 35 years.

It dropped so completely out of sight that there is no video version in America, Britain or France. Preparing to attend the epic production of both parts of Shakespeare's "Henry IV" at the Chicago Shakespeare Theater, I wanted to see it again and found it available on DVD from Spain and Brazil. Both versions carry the original English-language soundtrack; the Brazilian disc is clear enough and a thing of beauty. What luck that Welles shot in black-and-white, so there was no color to fade.

This is a magnificent film, clearly among Welles' greatest work, joining "Citizen Kane," "The Magnificent Ambersons," "Touch of Evil" and (I would argue) "The Trial." It is also magnificent Shakespeare, focusing on Falstaff through the two "Henry IV" plays to his offstage death in "Henry V." Although the plays are much abridged, it is said there is not a word in the film not written by Shakespeare.

Falstaff, "this huge hill of flesh," is one of Shakespeare's greatest characters -- the equal, argues Harold Bloom, of Hamlet. He so dominates the Henry IV plays that although Shakespeare promised he would return in Henry V, he reconsidered; the fat knight would have sounded the wrong note in that heroic tale, and so we learn from Mistress Quickly of his death, as he "babbl'd of green fields."

Welles was born to play Falstaff, not only because of the physical similarity but because of the rich voice, sonorous and amused, and the shared life experience. Both men lived long and too well, were at odds with the powers at court and were constantly in debt. Both knew disappointment, and one of the most sublime moments in Welles' career is simply the expression on his face at the coronation of Henry V, when he cries out "God save thee, my sweet boy," and the new king replies, "I know thee not, old man."

Prince Hal, later Henry V, is played in the film by Keith Baxter, who looks dissolute enough in the roistering at the Boars Head Tavern, but as early as Act 1, Scene 2 is an unpleasant hypocrite in the monologue where he admits his present misdeeds but promises to reform at the right time. In Shakespeare, this is a soliloquy; in Welles, Falstaff listens in the back of the shot and is forewarned. Later, in an echo of that composition, the prince looks impatiently toward the field of battle as Falstaff, behind him, questions the concept of honor. That each man hears the other's intended soliloquy adds a dimension to both.

Welles as director uses some of his familiar visual strategies; the vast interiors of Henry IV's castles contrast with the low ceilings and cluttered rooms of bawdy houses, just as the vast space of Kane's great hall contrasts with the low ceilings and dancing girls of the New York Inquirer. Royalty in "Chimes at Midnight" is framed by vast cathedral vaults, with high windows casting diagonals of light. Welles uses dramatic camera angles, craning to look up at the trumpeters atop the battlements as Henry IV rides off to battle.

At Mistress Quickly's, on the other hand, Falstaff and his roisterers have great freedom of movement involving doorways and posts, barrels and vertiginous staircases, barking dogs and laughing wenches. He and other actors circle verticals and one another as they speak, just as Welles and Joseph Cotten circled in "Citizen Kane" and "The Third Man." And watch the use of deep focus when he begins a shot with Hal seated in the background and, as news of his father's death is conveyed, Hal stands and moves forward, finally looming over the camera in foreground. All one shot.

The scene of the battle of Shrewsbury is justly famous. It lasts fully 10 minutes, chaotic action at a brutal pitch, horses and men confused in smoke and fog, steel crashing against steel, cries of pain, desperate struggles, confused limbs caked in mud and blood, men falling exhausted or dead. Barbara Leaming, one of Welles' biographers, says the scene was created by careful framing; Welles at no time had more than about 100 extras, yet seems to have a multitude, and the violence of the struggle was studied by Mel Gibson before he directed "Braveheart."

The battle is intercut with shots of a fat man in armor, hurrying and scurrying out of the way and finally playing dead. When Hal finds Falstaff flat on his back, he cries out, "What, old acquaintance! Could not all this flesh keep in a little life?" We know Falstaff is not dead, and Welles finds a way to let Hal know, too: the frost on the old man's breath puffs out from beneath his visor. Yes, it was cold. Welles shot on location in Spain, in winter; his first shot shows Falstaff as a tiny figure in a vast field of snow, his last shows Falstaff's coffin being pushed across snow toward his grave, and in several of John Gielgud's speeches as Henry IV, we can see the frost on his breath.

That Gielgud played the king and others such as Margaret Rutherford(Mistress Quickly) Jeanne Moreau (Doll Tearsheet) and Fernando Rey(Worcester) also appeared in the film is a tribute to Welles' reputation, for on a budget of less than $1 million he was, like Falstaff, not prompt to pay. Gielgud plays Henry IV as a dying man almost from his earliest scenes, plagued with guilt because of how he won his throne. His son is no consolation; the king envies Northumberland his son Henry Percy, known as Hotspur (Norman Rodway), and wishes "would I have his Harry, and he mine." He excoriates the thief and whoremonger Hal and his low companions, none lower in deportment or loftier in essential humanity than Falstaff.

How good is Falstaff? Consider the way warm affection illuminates the face of Jeanne Moreau as Doll Tearsheet caresses and tickles her beloved old rogue. Note the boundless affection Falstaff has for all around him, so real that even Quickly forgives his debts and allows him to contract new ones.

Such scenes illuminate the life Welles poured into "Chimes at Midnight." He came early to Shakespeare; he edited and published editions of some of the plays while still at prep school. On stage and screen, he was also Othello and Macbeth, his voice fell naturally into iambic rumbles, he was large enough for heroes and so small he could disappear before Henry V's scorn. He once asked an audience, reduced by a snowstorm: "Why are there so many of me and so few of you?"

There was not something Falstaffian about Welles, there was everything. As a young man he conquered all that came before him (at Shrewsbury a knight meekly surrenders to the old man, awed by his leftover reputation). Welles grew fat and in debt, took jobs unworthy of him, was trailed by sycophants and leeches, yet was loved by good women and honored by those who could see him clearly. And he battled on, Quixotic as well as Falstaffian, commencing grand schemes and sometimes actually finishing them (indeed, his "Don Quixote" can now be seen in intriguing but incomplete form).

The crucial point about "Chimes at Midnight" is that although it was rejected by audiences and many critics on its release, although some of the dialogue is out of sync and needs to be adjusted, although many of the actors become doubles whenever they turn their backs, although he dubbed many of the voices himself, although the film was assembled painstakingly from scenes shot when he found the cash -- although all of these things are true, it is a finished film, it realizes his vision, it is the Falstaff he was born to direct and play, and it is a masterpiece. Now to restore it and give it back to the world.

Note: A restoration of "Chimes at Midnight" is said to be in progress, with a possible release in a year or two. A Brazilian import that will play on North American machines can be ordered at:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007X6KM2/qid=1149816465/sr=1-1/

Also in the Great Movies collection at rogerebert.com are Welles' "Citizen Kane" (1941) and "Touch of Evil" (1956) and Carol Reed's "The Third Man" (1949).

讓我站在亨利五世的角度，我也會做相似的事情。五世將繼王位，福斯塔夫斷不能不知?？陀^地說，他固然死于心理上寄托不成的落寞，其寄托不成本身亦才是合情合理。古斯塔夫的命運(yùn)，總得來說，感性上確顯悲涼，值得同情；理性上說，實屬自作自受。

電影非常不錯，大場面調(diào)度的正面戰(zhàn)爭橋段更是震撼。彼時無特效，也沒有為了視覺給演員設(shè)定不符年代的武打動作。這種龐大卻真實的鏡頭感已是芳華絕代，今世無見。但片子的問題是，大部分時候都讓我覺得一直在往前趕。無論鏡頭節(jié)奏還是臺詞，俱顯倉促。尤其臺詞，暴發(fā)戶式的美式戲劇腔與莎士比亞式的古英語真心不配，非僅暴殄天物，根本極大影響觀影。若非其本身是好片子，我斷不會看下去。

（巾城）