Whenever I see La Paura I think of it as a companion piece to Eyes Wide Shut, or maybe it is the other way around. Adultery makes both films tick but in different ways. I think Phillip French was right on the money when he pointed out a Wizard of Oz thing in Kubrick's last work. Like Dorothy, Tom and Nicole go through fantasies and nightmares and at the end Dorothy's reassuring childish motto "there's no place like home" is ironically updated to the adult circumstantial adage "there's no sex like marital sex". Kubrick's take is intellectual, he never leaves the world of ideas to touch the ground. He taunts the audience first with an erotic movie and then with a thriller and refuses to deliver either of them. He was married to his third wife for 40 years, until he died. Rossellini was still married to Ingrid Bergman when he directed La Paura; they had been adulterous lovers and their infidelity widely criticized La Paura is a tale, a noirish one. The noir intrigue is solved and the tale has a happy ending. The city is noir; the country is tale, the territory where childhood is possible. The transition is operated in the most regular way: by car, a long-held shot taken from the front of the car as it rides into the road, as if we were entering a different dimension. Irene (Bergman) starts the movie: we just see a dark city landscape but her voice-over narration tells us of her angst and informs us that the story is a flashback, hers. Bergman's been cheating on her husband. At first guilt is just psychological torture but soon expands into economic blackmail and then grows into something else. From beginning to end the movie focuses on what Bergman feels, every other character is there to make her feel something. Only when the director gives away the plot before the main character can find out does he want us to feel something Bergman still can't. When she finds out, we have already experienced the warped mechanics of the situation and we may focus once again on the emotional impact it has on Bergman's Irene. In La Paura treasons are not imagined but real, nightmares are deliberate and the couple's venom suppurates in bitter ways. Needless to say, Ingrid has another of her rough rides in the movies but Rossellini doesn't dare put her away as he did in Europa 51, nor does he abandon her to the inscrutable impassivity of nature (Stromboli). His gift is less transcendent and fragile than the conclusion of Viaggio in Italia. He just gives his wife as much of a fairy tale ending as a real woman can have, a human landscape where she can finally feel at home. Back to the country, a half lit interior scene where shadows suggest the comfort of sleep. After all, it's the "fairy godmother" who speaks the last words in the movie.
2022年3月12日观看。还是比较客观的。
优雅 克制 美丽 无功无过 但起码没让对这段历史完全不熟的我看不下去也没让我快进
说不上来哪里不对。一切似乎太过于轻而易举，而结论下得又过于草率。学院风格稳扎稳打确实没错，但好像就缺了那一点让人留恋的催化剂。这个结尾毁在了最后一句字幕上。
历史 但最终历史并不由他们书写 强国可以决定弱国命运 人类的欲望永远是征服 征服永远是发动战争 没有永恒稳定的和平 无论放在哪个年代 都是定律
希望，是有人在为希望做准备，在努力。慕尼黑的边缘没有和平，只是都在为全面的战争做准备而已。
张伯伦一直以绥靖政策而被作为丘吉尔的反面例子，这一部给了一些不同的视角，虽然很无力。
当历史英耽看很好嗑。喜欢这类大变局前夕的电影。不过不同意片尾的文字，美化了。
拍得一般，但是现在这个档口看还是感觉不一样的。张伯伦的洗白之路。另外我非常的腐眼看人基，对不起哦。
强国分瓜弱国默，人微言轻逆势难。
这种以小见大能把人带回到现场，但总有种不见全章的困顿感，感觉会影响对历史的理解。
影片没有像过去的二战时期一样叙事，更多的着笔于人物内心的刻画与演变，以人为本，总是好事；任何大背景下都有义盖云天的小人物在努力，可能尽管改变不了结局，也会彰显人性的光芒；人物越笨拙，故事越真实，人若是从结局往开始的方向活着，会出现更多拔枪的壮士。摄影有点操蛋，该晃不该晃的都瞎几把晃，既没添光加彩，还略失时代庄重，晕车患者慎入……
对于西方国家来说，国内的民意和支持率才是政客们的关注点，在当时英国国内反战情绪高昂的大背景下，张伯伦被现世诟病谴责的“绥靖政策”，也存在着历史的必然性。
人类也是第一次经历希特勒这种出尔反尔的疯子却装成是领袖的样子，都像是吃了好几闷棍，不过好像到了2022这样的人还在世界上存在着，你们知道是谁吗
7.5/10.
合格分的二战爆米花，就是最后的字幕太屎了，绥靖和战胜纳粹都快吹成因果关系了，减1星。
感觉精髓是片尾阴天下被攥在手里的纸，真的很脆弱
故事还算流畅，帅哥好看，cp好嗑，仅此而已。
22.02.22.Putin大帝宣布承认乌克兰两个共和国。历史重演
7分。战争一触即发，两个年轻人试图扭转局势。1938年，德国想要吞掉捷克的苏德台地区，英法德意四国首脑在慕尼黑开会协商此问题，没有捷克。德国有个年轻外交官冒着生命危险试图警告英法，好不容易传达到信息，却没有等到英法首脑在协议上拒绝签字的结果。张伯伦的避战立场是否真的给了盟国备战时间？如果在慕尼黑就撕破脸，东欧各国以及犹太人是否就不会如此悲惨？历史无法重来，英国提前介入也不是张伯伦一个人说了算的。情绪上还是没有期望中的那么紧张，节奏还不错。
不枉我等了444天（ps.荞麦和杰西卡姐姐二搭开心）
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
