摘自特呂弗于1974年出版的影評集《我生命中的電影》，英文翻譯：Leonard Mayhew Da Capo Press在美國出版的版本。當(dāng)年特呂弗看到的本片并非如今廣泛流傳的1998年重建版，而是當(dāng)年環(huán)球公司剪輯的，不受威爾斯認(rèn)可的版本。如今我們發(fā)現(xiàn)1998年重建版做的第一件事，就是去掉了開場的字幕，完成了特呂弗在本文第一句話中的設(shè)想。

You could remove Orson Welles's name from the credits and it wouldn't make any difference, because from the first shot, beginning with the credits themselves, it's obvious that Citizen Kane is behind the camera.

Touch of Evil opens on a shot of the clock of a time bomb as a man places it in the trunk of a white car. A couple have just gotten into the car and started off, and we follow then through the city. All this happens before the film starts. The camera perched on a motorized crane loses the car, finds it again as it passes behind some buildings, precedes it or cataches up with it, right up to the moment when the explosion we have been waiting for happens.

The image is deliberately distorted by the use of a wide-angle lens that gives an unnatural clarity to the backgrounds and poeticizes reality as a man walking toward the camera appears to advance ten yards in five strides. We're in a fantasy world all through this film, the characters appearing to walk with seven-league boots when they're not gliding on a moving rug.

There are movies made by incompetent cynics, like The Bridge on the River Kwai and The Young Lions, movies that are merely bluff, designed to flatter a public which is supposed to leave the movie house feeling better or thinking it has learned something. There are movies that are profound and lofty, made without compromise by a few sincere and intelligent artists who would rather distrub than reassure, rather wake an audience up than put it to sleep. When you come out the Alain Resnais' Nuit et Brouillard, you don't feel better, you feel worse. When you come out of White Nights or Touch of Evil, you feel less intelligent then before but gratifies anyhow by the poetry and art. These are films that call cinema to order, and make us ashamed to have been so indulgent with cliche-ridden movies made by small talents.

Well, you might say, what a fuss over a simple little detective story that Welles wrote in eight days, over which he didn't even have the right to supervise the final editing, and to which was later added a half-dozen explanatory shots he'd refused to make, a film he made "to order" and which he violently disavowed.

I'm well aware of that, as well as that the slave who one night breaks his chains is worth more than the one who doesn't even know he's chained; and also that Touch of Evil is the most liberated film you can see. In Barrage contre le Pacifique , Rene Clement had complete control; he edited the film himself, chose the music, did the mixing, cut it up a hundred times. But Clement is a slave nonetheless, and Welles is a poet. I warmly recommend to you the films of poets.

Welles adapted for the screen a woefully poor little detective novel and simplified the criminal intrigue to the point where he could match it to his favorite canvas------the portrait of a paradoxical monster, which he plays himself------under cover of which he designed the simplest of moralities: that of the absolute and the purity of absolutists.

A capricious genius, Welles preaches to his parishioners and seems to be clearly telling us: I'm sorry I'm slovenly; it's not my fault if I'm a genius: I'm dying: love me.

As in Citizen Kane, The Stranger, The Magnificent Ambersons, and Confidential Report (即《阿卡丁先生》), two characters confront each other------the monster and the sympathetic young lead. It's a matter of making the monster more and more monstrous, and the young protagonist more and more likable, until we are brought somehow to shed real tears over the corpse of the magnificent monster. The world doesn't want anything to do with the exceptional, but the exception, if he is an unfortunate, is the ultimate refuge of purity. Fortunately, Welles's physique would seem to preclude his playing Hitler, but who's to say that one day he will not force us to weep over the fate of Hermann Goering?

Here Welles has given himself the role of a brutal and greedy policeman, an ace investigator, very well known. Since he works only by intuition, he uncovers murders without bothering about proof. But the court system, which is made up of mediocre men, cannot condemn a man without evidence. Thus, Inspector Quinlan/Welles develops the habit of fabricating evidence and eliciting false testimony in order to win his case, to see that justice will triumph.

After the bomb explodes in the car, all that necessary for everything to go awry is for an American policeman（本片主角是墨西哥人，此處疑為特呂弗筆誤）on his honeymoon (Charlton Heston) to meddle in Quinlan's investigation. There is a fierce battle between the two men. Heston finds proff against Welles while Welles manufactures evidence against him. After a frantic sequence in which Welles demonstrates that he could doubtless adapt de Sade's novels like nobody else, Heston's wife is found in a hotel, nude and drugged, and apperently responsible for the murder of Akim Tamiroff, who in reality has been kiledd by Quinlan------whom Tamiroff had naively helped set this demonic stage.

As in Confidential Report, the sympathetic character is led to commit an underhanded act in order to undo the monster: Heston records the few decisive sentences on a tape recorder, sufficient proof to destroy Welles. The film's idea is summed up neatly in thie epilogue: Sneakiness and mediocrity have triumphed over intuition and absolute justice. The world is horrifyingly relative, everything is pretty much the same------dishonest in its morality, impure in its conception of fairness.

If I've used the word monster a number of times, it's merely to stress the fantastical spirit of this film and of all Welles's movies. All moviemakers who are not poets have recourse to psychology to put the spectator on the wrong scent, and the commercial success of psychological films might seem a good enough reason of them to do this. "All great art is abstract," Jean Renoir said, and one doesn't arrive at an abstraction through psychology------just the opposite. On the other hand, abstraction spills over sooner or later onto the moral, and onto the onlt morality that preoccupies us: the morality that is invented and reinvented by artists.

All this blends very well with Welles's supposition that mediocre men need facts, while others need only intuition. There lies that source of enormous misunderstanding. If the Cannes Film Festival had had the wisdom to invite Touch of Evil to be shown rather than Martin Ritt's The Long Hot Summer (in which Welles is only an actor), would the jury had the wisdom to see in it all the wisdom of the world?

Touch of Evil wakes us up and reminds us that among the pioneers of cinema there was Melies and there was Feuillade. It's a magical film that makes us think of fairy tales: "Beauty and the Beast," "Tom Thumb," La Fontaine's fables. It's a film which humbles us a bit because it's by a man who thinks more swiftly than we do, and much better, and who throws another marvelous film at us when we're still feeling under the last one. Where does this quickness come from, this madness, this speed, this intoxication?

May we always have enough taste, senstivity, and intuition to admit that this talent is large and beautiful. If the brotherhood of critics finds it expedient to look for arguments against this film, which is a witness and a testimony to art and nothing else, we will have to watch the grotesque spectacle of the Lilliputians attacking Gulliver.

-- 1958

公民凱恩的好，我不懂；

歷劫佳人的好，我懂。

開頭的長鏡頭，完美展示了懸念的意義，以炸彈開始，以爆炸結(jié)束，從兇手的視角展示一切，觀眾隨著兇手將炸彈放到汽車后備箱，受害者上車，大全景展示環(huán)境，再切入汽車的畫面，汽車出畫，主角入畫，汽車再入畫，觀眾已經(jīng)參與到電影中，有定時炸彈，不知道什么時候就爆炸了。

看完這個鏡頭，我想知道放炸彈的是誰，為什么要這么做，是的，看電影有了目標(biāo)，奧遜威爾斯在1958年拍攝的電影現(xiàn)在國內(nèi)上映的大部分電影都比不了，時間有時候會改變一些東西，有時候不會，如何用鏡頭講好一個故事，不容易，這部電影的命運(yùn)是坎坷的，奧遜威爾斯的剪輯版被片場否決，被制片廠亂剪一通后，奧遜威爾斯寫下五十多頁的修改備忘錄“在結(jié)束這份備忘錄時，我極誠摯的懇請你們贊同以我的剪輯模式剪輯影片，我在其中投入了多日的艱辛勞作?！?現(xiàn)在的版本根據(jù)奧遜威爾斯書面意見進(jìn)行了調(diào)整，電影畫面有些跳幀，如果一切按照奧遜威爾斯的做，這會是更好的電影。

看這樣的電影是一種享受，美國和墨西哥的邊境，罪惡叢生到川普想建一道墻阻住非法越境者。這部61年前拍攝的電影與現(xiàn)下的主題有關(guān)，只不過奧遜威爾斯的構(gòu)思出人意料，是墨西哥警察扮演正義一方，美國貪污警察和墨西哥裔扮演邪惡一方。出人意料的故事，懸念叢生；出人意料的鏡頭，調(diào)度從容；出人意料的表演，奧遜威爾斯本人出演邪惡警長。

警長指出的兇手不被墨西哥警察相信，墨西哥警察認(rèn)為警長栽贓，但最后的結(jié)果顯示警長指出的兇手確實(shí)是兇手，警長的直覺是對的，但是警長的手段是非法的。最后的片尾警長的部下喜歡警長，警長朝他開槍，他也朝警長開槍，兩人相繼斃命，這就是所謂的相愛相殺，奧遜威爾斯這個故事很超前，估計(jì)當(dāng)時的人一時還接受不了吧?，斄征斓蔓?，珍妮特利，還有查爾登·海斯頓，但表現(xiàn)最好的還是奧遜威爾斯。

7.9

這不就是那首詩嗎，人群以為她在招手，其實(shí)她在求救——在蘇茜被懸置人頭驚嚇時，這個可笑的場面出現(xiàn)了。表面放置一個公權(quán)與私權(quán)制衡的空殼，可程序正義戰(zhàn)勝目的正義這件事也太過簡單。因?yàn)闀r代變了，所以實(shí)際路線一直是人物心理，漢克昆蘭的專橫都來源于他的恐懼，但凝睇他的目光卻在幫助我們遠(yuǎn)離他，極致的仰角和俯角都是主觀鏡頭，誰會那樣注視他呢。最終，我們對他的感情，也只是從老鴇與搭檔那里得來。

“這是部真正的電影”，大家都在用這種話形容自己喜歡的電影，所以這是部真正的電影。于我而言那個從特寫開始的長鏡頭有種神學(xué)意味，恐怖被事先張揚(yáng)起來，畫面從最近的景別也可以跨度到最遙遠(yuǎn)，內(nèi)部完成的是一種蒙太奇效果：時間與空間上都有縱深，但信息量卻切割得清清楚楚，以此制造意義。邊境線那一側(cè)和這一側(cè)都有著獨(dú)屬自己環(huán)境的穩(wěn)定結(jié)構(gòu)，跑車與蘇茜瓦格斯夫婦的交錯則是一個熵增過程，它們都作為彼此秩序的闖入者存在。

若按結(jié)構(gòu)主義敘事學(xué)來講，昆蘭的跛腿象征著他某種內(nèi)心的殘缺：妻子被人勒死的事始終縈繞他腦海，或醉或醒時；而手段無論多惡劣，他都要確保正義是獲勝的。但沒必要以這種分析的方法，他是奧遜威爾斯，昆蘭是另一個公民凱恩。他妻子被害的這個案件又是一種對黑色電影反諷的處理，擺明了不會按部就班地揭露這個人物過去，除了提供他最終的殺人手法證明外，并沒有什么心理轉(zhuǎn)折上的用處。昆蘭跛腿這個缺陷根本不耽誤他追兇或謀殺，恰是在說在講手段的不正當(dāng)并不影響結(jié)果的正確。桑切斯供認(rèn)不諱，檔案前史里也并沒有人是無罪的。曾經(jīng)玫瑰花蕾什么都不是，而這次結(jié)語的含義是他身上僅受過的兩記彈傷。余生在為他曾經(jīng)落下的殘疾還債，說，“彼得，這是我為你而中的第二槍”。

最大的幽默感也在于此，而不是守夜人突然關(guān)上的音樂。等到昆蘭死了，瓦格斯也會成為他。他懷疑昆蘭，同樣是靠的一種所謂“直覺”；而他最終的取證方式，也是攻其下三路，在沒有證據(jù)的情況下怒毆墨西哥人，又設(shè)計(jì)了竊聽。妻子被害事情曾經(jīng)降臨于昆蘭，讓昆蘭明白了“手段無論多惡劣，他都要確保正義是獲勝的”這件事；而等到瓦格斯的妻子被陷害時，他所走上的也是并不光明的一條路。不可避免的是他終將信服昆蘭的哲學(xué)，繼而成為惡本身。廣受追捧的《殺人回憶》也設(shè)計(jì)了一樣的二人關(guān)系，但那都在近五十年后了。老鴇的最后一句說得對，“某種意義上他也是個人物”，這既是種無比從容的幽默感，又填滿了威爾遜對人類命運(yùn)的無奈，“你的未來早已消磨干凈”。他們在凝視深淵的同時——這可能有如此多角色仰拍鏡頭的意義——深淵也在凝視著他們。畢竟本就有所意識的是，如此極致的仰角都是主觀鏡頭：要不然，誰會那樣注視他呢。

一共有三個版本，對吧，我看的是111分鐘的，不知道是否需要擔(dān)心?！皻v劫佳人”這個翻譯，真的很糟糕。

沒人知道漢克·昆蘭倒下去的那一刻，心里在想些什么。

老伙計(jì)曼西斯的血滴在了他手背上，一滴，兩滴，三滴，呈暗紅色。

“皮特，這是我為你挨的第二粒子彈”

但也是最后一粒子彈。

瓦格斯警官高大英俊，他的新婚妻子蘇西甜美可人。雖然好人被構(gòu)陷令人義憤填膺，警官的追尋過程驚心動魄，最后結(jié)局的大團(tuán)圓也令捏住一顆心的觀眾熱血沸騰。

但也許我不是唯一一個，對漢克·昆蘭的死感到動容。

他肥胖的背影倒在漂滿渣滓的污水里的那一刻，并沒有掀起什么水花。但那一刻，仿佛甚至連正義的伸張都褪色了許多。

沒錯，漢克·昆蘭是個絕對意義上的壞蛋。他在警察署工作了三十年，靠著他的著名“直覺”破了上百個兇殺案，是上司心中可靠的下屬，搭檔心中無敵的存在，惡棍聽到他的名字聞風(fēng)喪膽。

但當(dāng)瓦格斯警官閱讀卷宗時，卻發(fā)現(xiàn)他破案的關(guān)鍵是那些根本不該存在的“證據(jù)”。昆蘭的“神探”之名，多半來源于他對嫌疑人的構(gòu)陷。

“他投到死囚里的那些人怎么樣了？為他們省省你的眼淚吧?！?/p>

瓦格斯警官對曼西斯這樣說道。

是的，如果，這些人都是被他“構(gòu)陷”的，如果這些人并沒有罪呢？

昆蘭出場的時候是個傲慢、冷酷又滿嘴下流話的胖子。這個世界對胖子并不友好，而當(dāng)這個胖子又一臉猥瑣地談?wù)撁撘挛枧?、和天降正義的男主角作對的時候，這個世界對他就更不友好了。

昆蘭的面具第一次破碎，是在老伙計(jì)曼西斯的嘴里。曼西斯，這個沒什么能力的老好人，開著車帶著女主角蘇西去汽車旅館，一臉崇拜地談?wù)撈鹄ヌm和他的瘸腿，說他如何救了自己的命。

“Captain Quinlan!”

曼西斯大聲回答，對女主角問“who are you talking about?”的疑問表示不滿。仿佛在這個靠近墨西哥的小城，沒有聽說過警長昆蘭的大名就是一種惡行。他一臉驕傲地談?wù)撈鹄ヌm怎樣戒掉了酗酒，“我以為是漢克做過的最勇敢的事情”，“不用睡覺也能工作不停”。

隨著昆蘭露出他的猙獰面目，對柔弱的嫌疑犯小哥用刑，在男主面前張口說瞎話地堅(jiān)持證據(jù)存在，在和大反派同流合污之后，這個惡人的面具第二次破碎，在對他無比信任和崇拜的搭檔曼西斯面前，談起他年輕無知時，妻子的死。昆蘭談起自己的苦苦追索，以及罪犯的逃離法網(wǎng)卻意外死在了比利時。

“這是最后一個逃出我手心的罪犯?！?/p>

昆蘭說。

‘“瓦格斯想和腐敗做斗爭，這就是他會得到的戰(zhàn)斗?！?/p>

突然，這個惡棍警長的胖臉，多了一分深沉和堅(jiān)毅。

警長昆蘭，是否真如我們看到的，是個罪人？

哦，寫到這里才想起來，之前昆蘭的面具還破碎過一次。那是在風(fēng)吹得舊報(bào)紙到處飛的午夜，一眾警探、DA遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)聽見塔娜家的自動鋼琴的彈奏聲。這個抽吃著糖的胖子眼睛突然亮了起來，那經(jīng)歷過滄桑的美人眉宇間籠罩了一層輕輕的霧靄。

“我沒認(rèn)出你來?！保廊松舷麓蛄苛怂冃蔚能|體一眼，“你不該再吃糖了?！?/p>

“要么是糖果，要么是烈酒。我希望我長這么胖是靠了你的辣椒?！?/p>

昆蘭看著舊日情人，眼角的皺紋里帶著溫柔的微笑。

仿佛他注視著的，是曾經(jīng)那段美好時光。

那段遇到煩心事的時候，可以帶上兩箱威士忌，在塔娜家里躲上兩三天的美好時光。

但他終究戒了酒。訣別了塔娜。不再回頭。

是否從那時起，他做出了最后選擇，選擇擁抱深淵，從此走入無法回頭的黑暗里？

已經(jīng)無人可以知曉了。

昆蘭在這個故事的時間點(diǎn)里做了三件骯臟事：構(gòu)陷蒙騙富家女的窮小子、殺死黑幫老大、構(gòu)陷女主蘇西。

最后窮小子招了，他的確殺了富家女的父親。

黑幫老大和他的手下惡行累累。

女主并沒有受到實(shí)質(zhì)性的傷害，沒有被注射毒品，也沒有留下犯罪記錄。

然而這只是完美的巧合。如果窮小子沒有犯罪呢？如果蘇西不幸被黑幫分子傷害了呢？如果黑幫老大命不該死呢？

誰能保證昆蘭在三十年間的每一樁案子，都“巧合”得如此完美，讓罪惡的人受審判，讓無辜的人獲得正義？是誰給他的鋼絲繩上了保險(xiǎn)，又是誰能信誓旦旦替他立誓，他從來沒有在“枉法”之中，沒有過偏頗或有失公允？

有些人的命運(yùn)里，接受過黑暗之吻。

沒有人能解釋那是怎樣的一種能力，仿佛魔鬼在某個關(guān)鍵的時刻和地點(diǎn)，牢牢攫取了你。

你沒有變成魔鬼，但你也知道，你也再做不成你自己。

你用魔鬼的方式思考，你用最黑暗的眼神看著周圍，你所經(jīng)之處、你所看到的一切，都仿佛燃燒著鬼火。那些人回頭看你，你不用第二眼就能分辨，那些人頭上長著惡魔的角。正如你自己頭上長著的那雙一樣。

你不用證據(jù)。你知道他們在哪里。你知道他們是誰。你知道他們曾經(jīng)做過什么。

說服陪審團(tuán)和法官并不是難事。說服你那些老練但有些愚蠢的同事并不是難事。

難的是說服你自己。

你試著逃避那道障礙。你試圖告訴自己仍然是正常、善良的公民。你試圖灌醉自己，假裝自己沒有那種能力。你試圖不去看鏡子里完全變了形的臉。

你試圖回憶，塔娜，和那些美好的歲月。

但那雙無形的手牢牢攫取了你。那條繩索扼在了你的咽喉上。

你最終，還是走出了那一步。

曼西斯，我要怎樣告訴你，我沒有陷害任何一個人。他們每一個人都有罪，我替上帝對他們宣判。

只是，我遲早也會去上帝面前，接受對我的審判。

“你怎么評價別人，真的有那么重要嗎？”

”當(dāng)你凝視深淵時，深淵也在凝視著你?！?/p>

他面朝下倒進(jìn)了那潭污水里，而他的靈魂早已墜入了深淵。

但是，昆蘭警長，你真的想要被拯救嗎？

又或者，被不被拯救，對你而言，真的有那么重要嗎？