TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
金色的树林里分出两条岔路，
可惜我不能同时去涉足，
我站在那路口久久伫立，
我向着一条路极目望去,
直到它消失在丛林深处.
但是我却选择了另外一条路,
它荒草萋萋,十分幽寂,
显得更诱人,更美丽.
虽然那天清晨落叶满地
两条路都未经脚印污染
呵，留下一条路等改日再见
但我知道路径延绵无尽头
恐怕我难以再回头,
也许多少年后在某个地方，
我将轻声叹息把往事回首，
一片树林里分出两条岔路，
而我选择了人迹更稀少的那条，
从此决定了我一生的道路。
Friday, January 30, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
肖邦的音乐在电影《钢琴家》中 (zz)
罗曼·波兰斯基的经典电影《钢琴家》，作为一部波兰大导演摄制的反映波兰犹太人在二战期间遭受德国人残酷迫害的电影，不可避免地选择肖邦的音乐为电影的主导音乐。波兰斯基在选择音乐上匠心独具。
波兰斯基从众多肖邦的作品中选用了三首夜曲，两首叙事曲，一首圆舞曲，一首前奏曲，两首马祖卡和电影结尾时的钢琴与乐队的Grande Polonaise，每一首都选用得恰到好处，和电影的结构、情节和场景的转换、主人公的心境环环相扣。
电影伊始，钢琴家在录音棚里录制肖邦的《升c小调夜曲》。平静舒缓的开始，忧伤宽广的基调，预示着千百万犹太人的生命即将终止的厄运。波兰斯基在这里采用的完全是史实：一九三九年九月二十三日，正当钢琴家Szpilman在华沙的录音棚里录制肖邦的《升c小调夜曲》，纳粹的炸弹无情地飘落下来。
电影中最震撼人心的一个片段，是在钢琴家的磨难即将结束时，为了打开一厅罐头，在火炉旁被德国军官发现。
波兰斯基在这个场景之前，已经通过音乐为这位德国军官是个什么样的人作了巧妙铺垫。当时钢琴家发现有德国人回来，便抱着罐头躲进阁楼里。这时，楼下隐约飘来贝多芬《月光奏鸣曲》第一乐章的琴声，德国军官将这段音乐弹奏得清冷悠怨，充满了人情，弥漫着惆怅和无奈，即暗示了他心有音乐灵犀、是一个艺术的欣赏者和同情者，又暗示了他骨子里没用其他德国刽子手那种凶残本性。有了这个铺垫，他作为一个德国军官，冒险拯救一个苟延残喘的犹太艺术家的薄命，才不显得唐突。。。。
当军官得知自己面前这个瘦弱无助的犹太人是钢琴家时，便请他弹点什么。钢琴家略微迟疑了一阵，似乎是惊魂未定，因为这个时刻也许就是他弱小生命的最后一刻。沉着下来后，他选择了弹奏肖邦的《g小调第一叙事曲》。这是一个大义凛然的选择，他要用生命的最后一刻，表达自己对迫害者的反抗。
肖邦叙事曲深受波兰大诗人密茨凯维支叙事诗的影响，《g小调第一叙事曲》更是根据密茨凯维支的叙事史诗《康拉德·华伦洛德》而写。1828年，《康拉德·华伦洛德》问世，叙述十三世纪立陶宛爱国者华伦洛德领导民众抗击入侵的日耳曼十字军骑士的故事。钢琴家选择这首曲子，不是同样不屈地抗击日耳曼恶魔、准备从容赴死吗？
影片的女配角，那个同情和帮助钢琴家的非犹太裔大提琴艺人，也被波兰斯基巧妙地用音乐加以升华。清晨，阳光温柔地照在窗帘上，让你觉得这更象是在美好的梦里，只有温情，没有铁蹄和枪炮。她从容专注、外忍内强、以宗教沉思的方式演奏巴赫的《第一大提琴组曲》中的《G大调前奏曲》，给她腹中的小生命。波兰斯基让一个被占领国的艺人，演奏占领者的音乐，他要表现的不仅仅是音乐可以超越种族、宗教和国界，更是人性可以超越种族、宗教和国界！
这种人性超越，何不是人类最伟大的精神之一！梅纽因就贡献过这样的超越。他是第一个在二战后去德国演奏的犹太艺术家，并因此在犹太人中声名狼籍。相当多的犹太人终生不肯原谅这为曾经带给他们自豪的桂冠艺术家。同样的情怀和超越，也体现在2003年奥斯卡最佳外语片、德国电影《Nowhere in Africa》里面。这同样是一个真实的故事。三十年代初，纳粹对犹太人的迫害刚刚开始的时候，一个居住法兰克弗的犹太人法官被迫抛弃所有的财产，带着妻女流亡到非洲的肯尼亚。但他和妻子的其他留在德国的家人全部为纳粹屠杀。战后，这个犹太人却决然选择回到德国，为重建德国尽一份薄力。
有人说，作为一部描写音乐家的电影，里面的音乐并不多，有违《钢琴师》这个名字。
大音希声，大象无形。一部写音乐家的电影，未必一定要用过多的音乐。类似的情况同样出现在最近的一部颇受好评的法国电影《钢琴教师》里(La Pianiste，获2001年嘎纳电影节最佳影片提名)。里面同样恰到好处地选择了贝多芬、舒伯特等人的音乐。这部电影未必能使大部分中国人共鸣和接受，因为里面的性爱过于真实，但离谱、恶心。
波兰斯基的《钢琴家》，除了配乐上巨匠手笔，摄影也美伦美奂。精美的构图，含蓄的用光，凝重的色调，镜头变换的节奏，每每令人回想起波兰斯基早年另一部经典浪漫影片----《苔丝》。
波兰斯基从众多肖邦的作品中选用了三首夜曲，两首叙事曲，一首圆舞曲，一首前奏曲，两首马祖卡和电影结尾时的钢琴与乐队的Grande Polonaise，每一首都选用得恰到好处，和电影的结构、情节和场景的转换、主人公的心境环环相扣。
电影伊始，钢琴家在录音棚里录制肖邦的《升c小调夜曲》。平静舒缓的开始，忧伤宽广的基调，预示着千百万犹太人的生命即将终止的厄运。波兰斯基在这里采用的完全是史实：一九三九年九月二十三日，正当钢琴家Szpilman在华沙的录音棚里录制肖邦的《升c小调夜曲》，纳粹的炸弹无情地飘落下来。
电影中最震撼人心的一个片段，是在钢琴家的磨难即将结束时，为了打开一厅罐头，在火炉旁被德国军官发现。
波兰斯基在这个场景之前，已经通过音乐为这位德国军官是个什么样的人作了巧妙铺垫。当时钢琴家发现有德国人回来，便抱着罐头躲进阁楼里。这时，楼下隐约飘来贝多芬《月光奏鸣曲》第一乐章的琴声，德国军官将这段音乐弹奏得清冷悠怨，充满了人情，弥漫着惆怅和无奈，即暗示了他心有音乐灵犀、是一个艺术的欣赏者和同情者，又暗示了他骨子里没用其他德国刽子手那种凶残本性。有了这个铺垫，他作为一个德国军官，冒险拯救一个苟延残喘的犹太艺术家的薄命，才不显得唐突。。。。
当军官得知自己面前这个瘦弱无助的犹太人是钢琴家时，便请他弹点什么。钢琴家略微迟疑了一阵，似乎是惊魂未定，因为这个时刻也许就是他弱小生命的最后一刻。沉着下来后，他选择了弹奏肖邦的《g小调第一叙事曲》。这是一个大义凛然的选择，他要用生命的最后一刻，表达自己对迫害者的反抗。
肖邦叙事曲深受波兰大诗人密茨凯维支叙事诗的影响，《g小调第一叙事曲》更是根据密茨凯维支的叙事史诗《康拉德·华伦洛德》而写。1828年，《康拉德·华伦洛德》问世，叙述十三世纪立陶宛爱国者华伦洛德领导民众抗击入侵的日耳曼十字军骑士的故事。钢琴家选择这首曲子，不是同样不屈地抗击日耳曼恶魔、准备从容赴死吗？
影片的女配角，那个同情和帮助钢琴家的非犹太裔大提琴艺人，也被波兰斯基巧妙地用音乐加以升华。清晨，阳光温柔地照在窗帘上，让你觉得这更象是在美好的梦里，只有温情，没有铁蹄和枪炮。她从容专注、外忍内强、以宗教沉思的方式演奏巴赫的《第一大提琴组曲》中的《G大调前奏曲》，给她腹中的小生命。波兰斯基让一个被占领国的艺人，演奏占领者的音乐，他要表现的不仅仅是音乐可以超越种族、宗教和国界，更是人性可以超越种族、宗教和国界！
这种人性超越，何不是人类最伟大的精神之一！梅纽因就贡献过这样的超越。他是第一个在二战后去德国演奏的犹太艺术家，并因此在犹太人中声名狼籍。相当多的犹太人终生不肯原谅这为曾经带给他们自豪的桂冠艺术家。同样的情怀和超越，也体现在2003年奥斯卡最佳外语片、德国电影《Nowhere in Africa》里面。这同样是一个真实的故事。三十年代初，纳粹对犹太人的迫害刚刚开始的时候，一个居住法兰克弗的犹太人法官被迫抛弃所有的财产，带着妻女流亡到非洲的肯尼亚。但他和妻子的其他留在德国的家人全部为纳粹屠杀。战后，这个犹太人却决然选择回到德国，为重建德国尽一份薄力。
有人说，作为一部描写音乐家的电影，里面的音乐并不多，有违《钢琴师》这个名字。
大音希声，大象无形。一部写音乐家的电影，未必一定要用过多的音乐。类似的情况同样出现在最近的一部颇受好评的法国电影《钢琴教师》里(La Pianiste，获2001年嘎纳电影节最佳影片提名)。里面同样恰到好处地选择了贝多芬、舒伯特等人的音乐。这部电影未必能使大部分中国人共鸣和接受，因为里面的性爱过于真实，但离谱、恶心。
波兰斯基的《钢琴家》，除了配乐上巨匠手笔，摄影也美伦美奂。精美的构图，含蓄的用光，凝重的色调，镜头变换的节奏，每每令人回想起波兰斯基早年另一部经典浪漫影片----《苔丝》。
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
The New Cachet of Being Formerly Rich (zz)
In a Q&A in the New York Times Magazine Sunday, comedian Joan Rivers talked about the importance of keeping up appearances in today’s image-obsessed world (in her case with so much plastic surgery that when she dies “they will donate my body to Tupperware.”)
But when it comes to wealth, keeping up appearances has become hopeless. She says losing money a la Madoff has even become something of a status symbol.
JOAN RIVERS: I love my life, except for losing all that money with Ruth and Bernie. I’m pleading with you, please say, “She lost a bundle with Bernie Madoff.”
DEBORAH SOLOMON: Did you?
JOAN RIVERS: No, but everybody is walking around now saying that, and that shows that you used to be very rich.
Joan is being Joan, of course. But in a post-bubble, government-bailout, tax-the-rich, post-Ponzi scheme economy, losing money may become socially acceptable. Maybe even respected.
Being a FRIP–a Formerly Rich Person–may become more socially and politically acceptable today than being a newly minted millionaire or billionaire. No one wants to be the guy driving the new Hummer or the woman showing off the new 72-carat necklace or the family building the biggest mansion on the block right. But losing $20 million or $1 billion, now that is an achievement. Plus, being a financial victim like everyone else gives the anxious wealthy instant everyman credibility.
If 2008 was about getting rich, 2009 will be about having been rich.
And the number of Frips is likely to keep increasing. There will surely be other Madoff-like hedge-funds and investment firms that implode, not nearly on the same scale, but certainly large enough to wreck some personal fortunes. Financial markets will continue to wobble, housing prices will continue to be soft and everything will be worth less than it was last year.
In short, the greatest engine of wealth creation over the past decade–leverage and liquidity–has stalled.
So perhaps the new competition among the wealthy at the country clubs won’t be about how much they just reaped from their leveraged buy-out or from their macro hedge fund. It will be how much they could afford to lose. Forget keeping up with the Joneses: 2009 will be about keeping up with the Adelsons.
But when it comes to wealth, keeping up appearances has become hopeless. She says losing money a la Madoff has even become something of a status symbol.
JOAN RIVERS: I love my life, except for losing all that money with Ruth and Bernie. I’m pleading with you, please say, “She lost a bundle with Bernie Madoff.”
DEBORAH SOLOMON: Did you?
JOAN RIVERS: No, but everybody is walking around now saying that, and that shows that you used to be very rich.
Joan is being Joan, of course. But in a post-bubble, government-bailout, tax-the-rich, post-Ponzi scheme economy, losing money may become socially acceptable. Maybe even respected.
Being a FRIP–a Formerly Rich Person–may become more socially and politically acceptable today than being a newly minted millionaire or billionaire. No one wants to be the guy driving the new Hummer or the woman showing off the new 72-carat necklace or the family building the biggest mansion on the block right. But losing $20 million or $1 billion, now that is an achievement. Plus, being a financial victim like everyone else gives the anxious wealthy instant everyman credibility.
If 2008 was about getting rich, 2009 will be about having been rich.
And the number of Frips is likely to keep increasing. There will surely be other Madoff-like hedge-funds and investment firms that implode, not nearly on the same scale, but certainly large enough to wreck some personal fortunes. Financial markets will continue to wobble, housing prices will continue to be soft and everything will be worth less than it was last year.
In short, the greatest engine of wealth creation over the past decade–leverage and liquidity–has stalled.
So perhaps the new competition among the wealthy at the country clubs won’t be about how much they just reaped from their leveraged buy-out or from their macro hedge fund. It will be how much they could afford to lose. Forget keeping up with the Joneses: 2009 will be about keeping up with the Adelsons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)