我想结束这一切

《我想结束这一切》(I’m Thinking of Ending Things, 2020) 的编剧与导演是曾经获得多次奥斯卡提名的查理考夫曼 (Charlie Kaufman)。电影是由自加拿大年轻小说家伊恩．里德 (Iain Reid) 的同名小说改编（作者的姊姊是冰岛第一夫人，姐夫是当今的冰岛总统）。假若你曾经很喜欢《王牌冤家》(Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 2004)，应该会在剧中发现许多构图与色泽熟悉的画面。

小说版本的《我想结束这一切》是部惊悚心理故事，关于一位不知名的女孩，描述她与刚交往几个月的男朋友杰克，前往父母在郊外的农庄的诡异经过。电影的故事相当接近原著小说，不过女主角却有个自己的名字，露西与露西的变化型 (Lucy, Lucia, Louisa)，甚至后来还被称为亚米斯(Ames)。原本导演主意露西是由惊奇队长布丽．拉森 (Brie Larson) 饰演，但是后来却是由杰西．伯克利 (Jessie Buckley) 担任女主角，这位爱尔兰女演员与歌手，曾经在 2018 的《铿锵玫瑰》(Wild Rose) 有非常出色的表现，同时以演技与歌艺获得英国奥斯卡的最佳女主角奖。这是部讲述一位热爱歌唱的单亲妈妈，如何由困境谷底走出新的人生，并以歌唱翻转自己的命运。

不过，伯克利在《我想结束这一切》并未有机会展现她的歌喉，但是在漫长的公路旅程中，却能以声音、表情、与肢体，创造与男友对话同时在内心思忖的冲突与张力，《我想结束这一切》对演员来说，绝对是演技极大的考验。除了博克利之外，男主角杰西·普莱蒙 (Jesse Plemons)、饰演男主角母亲的东妮·克莉蒂 (Toni Collette) 以及男主角父亲的大卫·休利斯 (David Thewlis)，也都是精练的演技派，透过低沉平淡的对话，相对突兀荒谬的笑声，创造冬夜在农场小屋中的诡秘阴森。

《我想结束这一切》不是个好懂的电影，考夫曼的作品，大概除了《兰花劫》(Adaptation, 2002) 跟《王牌冤家》，其他部作品像是《纽约浮世绘》(Synecdoche, 2008) 和《变脑》(Being John Malkovich, 1999)，都不是一次就能轻易明了的电影。

不过，从过去考夫曼电影的风格，我们知道他有一贯的创作思路：角色纠结在意识与潜意识之间、现实与幻象/幻想/梦境之间、在脑内与现实之间、甚至还有死后灵魂的生前回想。《我想结束这一切》的确也是如此，如果由故事的结尾往前看，或许就比较清楚。

———以下有雷———

先直接说结论。简单地说，故事的主线几乎都是发生在一个老年男性的脑内，是他的幻想、期待、与最后的行动——自杀（也就是”我想要结束这一切“）。故事一开始，当露西说她要跟男朋友杰克，一起开车去拜访他在乡下父母的家时，有个男人由屋子里探望着屋外，瞄看是否有人将至，这位某个男人，就是真正的男主角，也就是在杰克老家附近的高中里，一直担任清洁人员的真实老杰克。

真实的杰克，一直生活在乡下老家，并没有离开家乡到城市里，认识一个叫做露西的女孩。露西与杰克一起开车回乡下见父母的所有情节，都是来自于真实杰克（也就是校园清洁员）的幻想。真实的杰克，是个孤僻自闭又宛若隐形人一般的老年男性，有交友的困难，也没有朋友，只能远远地观看高中男女的戏剧排演与青春生活。

真实的杰克非常向往受到他人喜爱，也渴望与他人有真诚的内心交流，但是真实的杰克其实是与父母同居于农场小屋的孤僻男性。不只他自己一直老去，他也眼睁睁地看着父母亲的衰老，最后走向死神的怀里。露西在杰克家看到的父母亲，一会儿年老，一会儿年轻，甚至还有临终将死，都是老杰克的现实生活情节。

露西并非真实人物，而是老杰克在孤独生活时期，存于脑中的假设与幻想。如此，露西的名字才会变来变去，从露西、露易丝、露易西亚，变到亚米斯和伊冯 (Yvonne)。因为露西从未真实存在，所以露西所说的话，其实也是杰克的内心呓语。如此，我们就能明白，当杰克询问露西，可否道出近日所写的新诗时，露西朗诵的那首诗 “Bonedog” ，会出现在杰克房间的一本书（Eva H. D. 所着的 Rotten Perfect Mouth）；这也是为何，当露西看着杰克房间墙上的幼时照片时，会说出：”我觉得这好像是我的小时候。“

因为露西根本不存在，只是个幻象，所以杰克不希望露西进入地下室，因为在洗衣机里面，正在洗的每一件衣服，都是清洁工人的制服。此处的惊悚，不在于黑暗阴森的地下室，也不是总是笑得荒唐的母亲，而是有可能揭发露西不过是杰克的幻想，戳破露西只是杰克幻境中的一枚棋子。

换句话说，露西在杰克家的当时，现实是杰克这位中学的清洁工人，是个独居老人，父母已经过世，洗衣机正洗着他的制服，同时他也活在他的幻想中，想像中年时的他自己，有个交往六个月的女朋友，非常聪明又开朗，他有幸带她回家中认识父母，假想两人可能的未来。

当他想像着露西时，这个女朋友没有一个明确的真正模样，一会儿是画家、一会儿是正在写论文的医学研究者、一会儿是老人专家，一会儿又是精明的科学家，这些专业都是出自杰克的期待与幻想。当露西强调她懂老人时，其实反射在现实中的实况，就是老杰克的健康状况不佳，生活也不是很顺遂。

与此同时，露西的手机一直有人打电话进来，但是打电话给露西的人，其实都是她自己，她根本就在自己的回路里。当露西接起手机时，都是来自同一个男人的同样一句话：只有一个问题要解决，我感到很害怕，我觉得我快疯了，头脑已经不清楚了（“There’s only one question to resolve. I’m scared. I feel a little crazy. I’m not lucid.”）。此时，不只露西是存在自己的回路，而露西与露西的电话，也都是存在于杰克脑中的幻想。如此，也可以明白为何无论露西如何乞求，就是回不了自己的家。

露西接到杰克呓语，是来自现实世界的杰克不断向内心寻求的帮助与解答。当露西不断在内心自言自语的”我想结束这一切“，当然也是来自杰克脑中挥之不去的念头：结束生命。

当露西找寻不到杰克，来到中学走廊，而遇到老杰克时，露西曾经对着老杰克数落自己男朋友的不是，甚至明说两人根本没有真正的开始，不过只是数千次萍水相逢的一次，要露西描述杰克，”就像是要我描述四十年前的一个晚上，叮过我的蚊子“一样的困难。这就是杰克的现实，让女人一点也不会喜爱，甚至觉得是种骚扰社会的边缘人。

杰克自杀的桥段，是融合在高中舞台剧的芭蕾双人舞。这场双人舞是取自音乐剧《奥克拉荷马》（Oklahoma!, 1943）。故事发生在奥克拉荷马的乡下农场，女孩萝莉威廉斯 (Laurey Williams) 有两个追求者，一个是英姿焕发的牛仔克尔利麦克兰 (Curly McLain) ，另一位则是农场工人加得福莱 (Jud Fry)。这场双人舞是萝莉挣扎于两个追求者的心情，最后，萝莉将农场工人解雇，接受牛仔的感情。但是，受解雇又爱情受挫，农场工人加得怀恨在心，于是有天带着一把刺刀回到农场，将由牛仔胸口刺下一刀，也就是双人舞的最后结局，年轻的舞者倒地喷血，垂死在高中篮球场上的白雪纷飞里。

引用《奥克拉荷马》的双人舞，正是现实中的老杰克，将幻想中的年轻杰克由脑中割除，也将自己带回现实，同时结束自己的生命。这是个非常悲伤的故事，一个一生都活在自卑自闭、孤独幽暗的社会边缘人，仅仅活在一丝浪漫的幻想，最终却不敌寒冬与健康的威胁，不敌对于生命悲观的无助，而将自己性命断送，真实地”结束这一切“。

考夫曼引用多部文学作品于电影的对话与影像中，有些引用是取自原著小说，有些则是来自考夫曼的巧思添加。无论是编导或是小说家，考夫曼和瑞德都是非常博学的当代创作者，字里行间藏着许多经典的作品与智慧的结晶，这也是为何观看考夫曼的电影会是种非常不一样的体验，是种真正的烧脑与脑波激荡。

煎熬，焦虑，困惑。这是观赏《我想结束这一切》大部分时间的感受。Jake一家的老房子里，仿佛时间发生了扭转，不同时期的父母轮番登场，Lucy穿行于其中，见证了他们的青年、老年和死亡。但这种见证并非是线性的，Lucy和观众一样，看到的是一团混乱，混乱中又掺杂着诡异和残忍。

影片的对白十分密集，看似充满了思辨色彩。作为观影者，努力想抓住一句“点题”的台词，然后借着这根线索去破解故事背后的真相。但当我每次以为接近谜底的时候，故事又朝着意想不到的方向滑行。

《我想结束这一切》刚刚上映时，媒体用“烧脑”“不到最后绝对猜不出真相”来形容这部电影。但实际上这并不是一部悬疑片。观众可以在悬疑片中充当侦探，抽丝剥茧，一步一步接近真相，最终得到一个清晰的答案。但这部电影结束时，我的感受仍然是错乱的。我们可以做出无数种解读，又推翻它们。我们时而昏昏欲睡，时而又因这混乱焦躁不安。

于是我放弃为这部电影梳理出一条明晰的线索，任由那些混乱的感受在脑海内自由地升起又降落。这时我意识到，或许混乱与矛盾本身就是影片的主题。电影在小空间内模拟了人仓促的一生，而我们观影时那些不太愉悦的体验也正是我们大部分时间对生活本身的感受。

“我们静止不动。时间像冷风穿过我们，偷走我们的热量，让我们冻结皲裂。我感觉今晚自己就是那股风。”离开Jake家后，Lucy坐在车上，有了这样一段内心独白。或许这段独白可以作为理论依据，解释故事前后的断裂感。也正是这段独白，暗示了本片虽然以Lucy作为主视角，真正的主角却是Jake。Jake是时间中的定点，而Lucy是流动的时间，所以Lucy的身份、故事甚至名字，不断变化，前后矛盾。Lucy从不是一个特指的具体的人，在她身上可以找到多重的意蕴。

Lucy可以是在Jake一生中爱过的女人的集合。在Jake的讲述中，她先是画家，一会儿又变成物理学家，后来又成了服务员。她有时被唤做Luisa，或者Lucia。她与Jake相识相爱的过程在每一次讲述中都有着不同的版本。当一生的回忆坍缩成一个夜晚，Jake爱过的那些女人汇集到一起，建构了这场幻想中Lucy这个女友的形象。

Lucy也可以是Jake一生的见证者，只不过在这场回忆中以女友的身份出现。她穿梭于Jake长大的那栋老房子，看到了这个家庭的过去、现在和未来。日本科幻作家小林泰三在《醉步男》中写过一个观点，时间是碎片化的、没有逻辑的，而时间的线性和因果律只存在于人的主观意识之内。我们总是谨小慎微地做出选择，但最终命运还是将我们带往无尽孤独与绝望的终点。《我想结束这一切》中的时间似乎也是如此，Jake双亲的不同年龄阶段，随机出现。她先是看到了Jake父母被病痛逐渐剥夺意识的老年，之后见证了Jake母亲去世的那一幕，随后Jake父母年轻时的形象又交替出现在眼前。她穿梭于这栋房子不同的房间，正如在不同的时空之间跳跃。一切都充满了宿命感，生命悲凉的结局，足以消解掉生活本身的意义。

Lucy甚至就是Jake自己，她与Jake分别是一个人的内心与表面。Jake想要带女友见父母，进一步确认两人的关系，而Lucy想要结束这场恋情，把一切都画上句号；Jake安于现状，对房子里的诡异氛围视而不见，而Lucy则焦虑不安，迫不及待想要在暴雪天里离开。如果说Jake代表着我们生活表面的波澜不惊、止步不前，那么Lucy则象征着我们内心挣扎的一面。我们迫不及待地想要逃离这栋诡异的房子，正如迫不及待地想逃离衰老、疾病与死亡，却不知道被什么绊住了双脚，陷在生活的泥淖里不断下坠，最终任由绝望把自己淹没。

那些超现实的体验都可以视作Jake回忆的变体。Jake在幻想和梦境中，将一生的经历精简成一个晚上，一场旅程。但梦与幻想不可能没有破绽，老年Jake孤单清扫学校的场景总是突兀地穿插在整个叙事之中。没有人能躲避孤独、衰老与死亡，于是任由Lucy如何反对，汽车最终还是驶入了学校——那是Jake孤独终老的地方。

影片的空间被精简到四个——汽车，农场房子，甜品站，学校。每一个空间可以代表主角Jake的一段生命历程。农场房子是Jake长大的地方，象征着他不太愉快的童年，他想要逃离神经质的父母，却还是被这份亲情牵绊。甜品站是他不想回首的青春期，他因为肥胖，被明艳的女同学嘲笑和孤立。汽车这个小空间是时空的中转站，他经由此处，到达一个又一个回忆的站点。而学校，是起点也是终点，是梦境也是现实。Lucy必须与老年Jake相见，也是与无法逃避的现实坦诚相见。

《我想结束这一切》呈现的是敏感个体的内在挣扎，是人类极致的孤独体验。我们一生都在试图克服灵魂的怯懦、焦虑与惶恐。时间是流水，裹挟着万事万物从我们体内穿行而过。我们留不住任何人，父母、兄弟、爱人一个接一个地离开。我们努力过，思索过，做了很多错误的决定，最终孑然一身，一丝不挂。于是只能在濒死之时，用残存的意识编织一个盛大的典礼，生命中流经的那些人在此聚集，为我们起立鼓掌。我们假装自己是主角，对着一片虚无接受生命的礼赞。这也是电影最高潮，看似圆满，实则可悲又苍凉，荒唐又残酷。

影片的开篇与结局都是静物。开头是老房子里被灰尘覆盖的旧物，结尾是被大雪覆盖的汽车。这两组镜头，都感受不到一丝生命的气息——在这片冰雪覆盖的风景里，除了死亡，再也没有任何出口。

我又想到了《醉步男》的结局，某种程度上可以成为本片的注解：

“我到底是什么？” 你是祭祀品。

“为什么人可以安定地生活？” 因为波函数可以坍缩。

“折磨我的是什么？” 是无法抗拒的命运。

“为什么人不能舍弃希望？” 因为波函数可以发散。

看了一篇对导演Charlie Kaufman关于这部电影的专访，想转一下文章里关于电影情节的Q&A部分。原文9月4日发表于IndieWire.com, 作者Eric Kohn, @erickohn。以下问答涉及剧透。

Why does it seem like Jake can hear Lucy’s thoughts?

In the opening sequence of the movie, Jake and Lucy endure an interminable drive up to his parents’ house, while Lucy continues to contemplate leaving him. On several occasions, Jake glances over to Lucy during her voiceover, sometimes interrupting it. Is he telepathic? The answer is actually quite simple. At the end of Reid’s novel, it’s revealed that Jake and his unnamed girlfriend are the same person — the lonely high school janitor, who invented her as his fantasy. Think “Psycho” meets “Fight Club.”

It doesn’t take long for “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” to imply as much. When Lucy, an aspiring poet, shares one of her verses at the dinner table, it’s actually a sampling from “Rotten Perfect Mouth,” a collection of writings by real-life poet Eva H.D. Later in the movie, it’s not even clear if Lucy’s name is Lucy. (He calls her “Ames.” Amy?) Jake has built her out of the books, movies, and passing encounters that have shaped his isolated worldview.

So Lucy’s the main character and she also doesn’t exist?

Well…yes and no. The most sophisticated gamble of the movie is that Kaufman has taken this device and turned it into an open question: Can a fantasy exist on its own terms?

“She is a device, but I wanted her to be able to separate herself from that,” Kaufman said. “I didn’t want it to be a twist. I felt like that would not work in a movie at this point in history. When you make a movie, everything that’s sort of ambiguous becomes concrete. You’ve got people playing these things. You can see them.”

Needless to say, Buckley turns in a rich, haunting performance as a woman grappling with the uncertainty surrounding her. “To my mind, it would have been a misuse of any actress not to give them something to play that was real,” Kaufman said. “Because of the device that the book uses, it wasn’t required, and I needed it to be there.”

Fine, but that still doesn’t mean she’s a real person.

Right. But she has a definite representative power as Jake comes to terms with the impossibility of his delusion. At one point, he asks Lucy if she’s read Anna Kavan’s 1967 novel “Ice,” which takes place in a post-apocalyptic wasteland (not unlike the dreary outdoors that surround the movie’s two big car rides). The protagonist of “Ice” spends most of the book pursuing an unnamed woman while wrestling with the complicated nature of his attraction.

In “I’m Thinking of Ending Things,” the character endures that same struggle when the fantasy fights back. It’s a storytelling gamble unique to the art of cinema: Within the “world” of “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” — one controlled by Kaufman as well as his protagonist — Lucy exists. “I needed her to have agency for it to work as a dramatic piece,” Kaufman said. “I really liked the idea that even within his fantasy, he cannot have what he wants. He’s going to imagine this thing, but then he’s going to also imagine how it won’t work, how she’s going to bored with him, how she’s going to not think he’s smart enough or interesting enough.”

Eventually, Jake stops trying to solve his problems by inventing new people, and instead focuses on himself. “In keeping with the idea of giving her some agency, I didn’t want her to be responsible for his ending,” Kaufman said.

At one point, the janitor watches the final scene of a cheesy romance that’s directed by Robert Zemeckis. The abrupt end credit is hilarious. But why Zemeckis?

The janitor is often a passive character in the high school, absorbing faces and circumstances from the sidelines. However, one scene finds him sitting in an empty room, eating lunch and watching a movie on television. It’s the final minutes of a cheesy romance set in a diner, and the credits come up just long enough for one name to appear: “Directed By Robert Zemeckis.”

Why did Kaufman decide to toss in a reference to the director of “The Polar Express”? Kaufman has been telling interviewers that it happened at random, when his assistant director suggested it after perusing a list of director names online. Zemeckis wasn’t even in Kaufman’s original version of the script.

“Sometimes things are funny because they’re funny, and I feel like it’s possible that Zemeckis could have made this movie, even if it’s unlikely,” Kaufman said. At the same time, there’s a touch of irony to the choice. “I don’t think Zemeckis ever has or ever would make a movie like this,” Kaufman said. “It’s more like a Nancy Meyers movie. He wasn’t a model for it. His stuff is generally more high-concept, but it’s possible, so the joke resonates somehow.” He asked the director for permission to include the reference, and Zemeckis is thanked in the credits.

So it was just a random choice?

Yeah, that story sounds almost too neat for its own good, doesn’t it? After all, Zemeckis is one of the biggest commercial directors of the past 30 years, and Kaufman’s work is defiantly non-commercial. On top of that, Kaufman did at one point almost work with Zemeckis while adapting the young adult novel “Chaos Walking” way back in 2012. The project has gone through many writers since then, though Kaufman still has a credit on the Doug Liman-directed version set for release from Lionsgate next year. But Zemeckis was initially interested in taking it on.

“What happened with Robert Zemeckis was that I wrote a first draft of ‘Chaos Walking,’ and then I guess he read it and was interested in directing it,” Kaufman said. Lionsgate set them up. “It was a really nice meeting,” Kaufman said. “I had never met him before, but we had a really nice chat and came up with some solutions to some issues and that was the end of it. Then I didn’t end up moving forward with it, and neither did he.”

Alright, back to that cringe-inducing dinner. Why do the parents keep changing?

Over the course of a very creepy evening, Jake’s parents undergo a series of dramatic physical changes, from young to old and back again. Jake is basically living through the many stages of his parents’ lives, a process that has complicated the idea of bringing his new girlfriend home. Where does he place her in that timeline? He can’t find the perfect moment, because it doesn’t exist. As much as he wants to stay in the house with her, they eventually leave, at her insistence.

So begins another long car ride. And…was that a Pauline Kael impersonation?

While at Jake’s house, Lucy wanders into his childhood bedroom. It’s strewn with piles of movies, books, and other material. One volume stands out: “For Keeps: 30 Years at the Movies,” a 1996 selection of former New Yorker film critic Pauline Kael’s reviews (the book, now out of print, draws from several earlier collections). Once back on the road, Lucy and Jake engage in a loooooong, meandering discussion that bursts with highbrow references, from Guy Debord’s “Society as Spectacle” to Goethe’s theory of color and a David Foster Wallace essay from the collection “A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again.”

All of these fragments point to complicated ideas related to Jake’s obsessions, but none receive more screen time than a Pauline Kael review — her 1974 takedown of John Cassavetes’ “Woman Under the Influence.” (Strangely, that review is not included in “For Keeps.”)

Debating the film and its Gena Rowlands performance, Lucy basically transforms into Kael, repeating the review verbatim with a spot-on impersonation. “I’ve always liked her, and grew up with her and reading her, and thinking that she was smarter than I am,” said Kaufman, echoing the sentiment of many readers over the years. Jake seems to be one of them: After Lucy finishes her monologue about the movie, which he liked, he’s left speechless.

“That goes toward the idea of Jake not being able to have anything that he wants,” Kaufman said. “He had this opinion about that movie, and then failed. It’s an experience I’ve had — the idea that you like something, and then you read something by somebody that you really admire, and you feel like an idiot for liking that thing.” (Also notable: Kaufman’s recent novel, “Antkind,” is about the plight of a film critic.)

What’s up with Tulsey Town Ice Cream?

Eventually, the car ride is interrupted by a stop at Tusley Town Ice Cream, an invented small-town ice cream chain inexplicably open in the middle of a debilitating snowstorm. On the way over, Jesse and Lucy recall the jingle for the ice cream shop commercials. The pair stop there briefly and Lucy has a cryptic interaction with three women behind the takeout counter. Two of them are giggly and flirtatious, while a third seems terrified.

According to Kaufman, they’re all references to women that Jake has seen before. “Then there was this idea that there were many generations of high-school kids who worked there that he had interacted with over the years and had his problems with,” Kaufman said. “It’s a dreamy stop into his psyche, into his past.”

In the book, the couple actually stop at a Dairy Queen. “We weren’t able to get the rights to use that, so I changed it,” Kaufman said. “But I think it worked out better, because it’s more mysterious, and because it’s more local.”

Let’s talk about that dance sequence.

After they park at the high school, Jake runs inside, angry that the janitor is watching from afar. When Lucy goes after him, she has a warm encounter with the janitor in which he sends her on his way — suggesting that the character has finally accepted that he must part ways with his fantasy. Elaborating on this idea, Lucy and Jake then spot each other in a hallway, where they’re replaced by a pair of ballet dancers wearing the same clothes. Over the next several minutes, they engage in a lively piece of choreography patterned after a similar moment in the musical “Oklahoma!”

Earlier in the movie, the janitor passes a school recital of the play, which includes an extensive “dream ballet” sequence that finds the farm girl Laurey at the center of a brawl between two suitors, Curly McLain and Jud Fry. That sequence ends with Curly’s death; here, it’s the Jake stand-in who goes down, suggesting that Jake has accepted the impossibility of his love.

“There’s a few things in ‘Oklahoma!’ that felt like they were really kind of thematically parallel to the story that we were telling,” Kaufman said. As for the dream sequence: “I was always intrigued by it, because it’s so creepy, and I liked the idea of the doppelgänger aspect in it.” In other words, Jake has been pretending he’s someone else, and uses the narrative framework of “Oklahoma!” to eliminate that delusion.

And then there’s the talking animated pig.

Actually, that’s another pretty straightforward one. In his car, the janitor seems to have an attack of some sort, and possibly dies. Like Charles Foster Kane whispering “Rosebud” from his bed, janitor-Jake sees tidbits from his youth in the windshield, including the animated “Tulsey Town Ice Cream” ad referenced earlier. These give way to an animated pig with maggots on its stomach — a grim encounter that Jake recounts to Lucy earlier in the movie, while giving her a tour of the farm. The affable animal walks Jake back to his final moment of introspection.

Something about the innocence of the pig and its horrific underbelly traumatized Jake early in life. In his old age, he has come to terms with this fundamental imbalance in his universe.

In the last scene, everyone’s old. But it looks kind of…fake.

Onstage to accept an award in the movie’s final scene, Jake stands against a backdrop of the “Oklahoma!” set, wearing obvious stage makeup to look like an old man. But he’s not alone. It’s a packed house, and everyone in the room — including his parents and Lucy — are wearing the same makeup. Originally, Kaufman included a tidbit to explain this inclusion.

“There was a scene where the janitor found a makeup book in the bathroom as he was cleaning up, because somebody had clearly been putting their makeup on in this boys or girls room,” Kaufman said. The device allows Jake to bring everyone in his head to age along with him, while reminding us of the artifice in play. “All of the people who were in the audience, with the exception of the characters from the movie, are the extras who played high school kids in the rest of the movie,” Kaufman said. “So they’re all young people wearing old-age makeup.”

Is that…the closing speech from “A Beautiful Mind”?

Yup. When Jake accepts his prize, he recites the sentimental Nobel Prize speech delivered by economist John Nash (Russell Crowe) at the end of Ron Howard’s Oscar winner. In fact, the entire sequence has been built to resemble the conclusion of the 2001 movie.

Earlier in “I’m Thinking of Ending Things,” a DVD of “A Beautiful Mind” is glimpsed in Jake’s room, so it stands to reason that Jake found much relatable about the story of a brilliant man who struggles with paranoid schizophrenia and has trouble sorting out the reality surrounding him. Kaufman was wary of spelling that out, though.

“That’s one that I’m not as comfortable talking about because it does get to the meat of what the movie I made is about,” he said, but then elaborated anyway. “This movie is dealing with somebody’s experience of absorbing things that they see and how they become part of his psyche,” he said. “So this was in some ways how this person might have fantasized it out.”

Of course, there may be more to this: End credits claim that the speech was lifted with permission of the studio, but Kaufman played no role in that. Unlike Zemeckis, he didn’t ask for Howard’s blessing. “I have certainly never spoken to Ron Howard in my life,” Kaufman said. “I’m assuming they got permission.”

Considering that “A Beautiful Mind” was one of the cheesier Oscar winners of the previous decade (and it won the same year that “Adaptation” came out), it’s no huge leap to see the inclusion as a huge cinematic eyeroll about the misleading nature of storytelling that clouds the true nature of solipsistic struggles, something Kaufman has explored throughout his filmography. “A Beautiful Mind” puts a happy ending on that subject; in “I’m Thinking of Ending of Things,” the struggle never ends.

And then Jake sings…

Yep, more of “Oklahoma!” Sitting down on a set that looks like a reproduction of his childhood bedroom, he delivers a melancholic rendition of “Lonely Room,” in which Jud declares his intention of marrying Laurey. The song includes the telling line, “Get me a woman to call my own.” Dream on, Jud — and Jake, it seems. “The character of Jud seemed to be comparable in some ways to Jake,” Kaufman said. Sitting on a set built from the fragments that define his life, Jake has become the star of his own story and simultaneously confined by it.

And that’s it! Right?

Not quite. That final image of the janitor’s snow-encrusted car essentially suggests that janitor-Jake died there in the dead of night. It’s a beautiful, tragic capper to a story about one man confronting the failures of his life as it leaves his body. Kaufman hopes that people keep watching through the credits, which list many of the references throughout the movie. “There’s actually a lot of stuff in the end credits that’s important to me,” Kaufman said. “It’s an intentional thing, the way it plays out.”

Exhausted? Fine, but the riddles of the movie all serve a purpose. Ultimately, Kaufman doesn’t think that “I’m Thinking of Ending Things” hides much from its audience. “The way I was presenting it was that you would probably figure it out,” he said. “This is what the character is going through. You either get it or you don’t.”

全文链接：//www.indiewire.com/2020/09/charlie-kaufman-explains-im-thinking-of-ending-things-1234584492/

今年下半年诺兰的新片《信条》上映后不出所然的又引起一阵阵热议，伴随着烧脑、看不懂等标签，各路分析剧情的专家都乐不知疲的带着观众一遍遍破解诺兰的剧情谜题。然而同期在流媒体上上映的查理.考夫曼的新片《我想结束这一切》却显得关注数冷清了点。查理.考夫曼这个被称为好莱坞最好的编剧之一的男人，向来以诡异悬疑以及超现实的编剧方式而著称。

查理考夫曼作为编剧是反常规的，他大胆的开拓、创新全新的剧本编写模式，以独特的多种多样的方式去架构电影的空间，从而使电影的开放度很高，这样的解构形态使电影完全融入剧本框架，所以有人说考夫曼编剧的剧本是一个迷宫，即使他先给你看了整个迷宫的模型，当你真正漫游在影像的世界中还是会被每个转角处的思索而惊艳到。

《我想结束这一切》是改编自加拿大国民作家伊恩里德的得奖小说，也是考夫曼暌违荧幕五年之后又一自编自导作品，而考夫曼自己也说这将是他的收官作品。62岁的创作者在好莱坞不算高龄，毕竟伊斯特伍德、马丁斯科塞斯、伍迪艾伦这样的高龄导演都还在坚持创作，考夫曼如此之早的结束自己职业生涯难免让人唏嘘，也给这边电影铺垫上感伤的底色。我们不知道考夫曼为何要如此之早的谢幕，但在这部收官作品中一定有他告别的感言

观看考夫曼的电影并不是一件容易的事，虽然悬疑、时间、空间也是考夫曼电影的标签，但和诺兰不同，考夫曼聚焦的是日常，且用一种看似毫无关联的方式将这些琐事的日常串联在一起组成故事，观众能做的就是在这些时间和空间的碎片中自己去拼接完整的故事图景。在《纽约提喻法》中，考夫曼就像一个疯狂的剪刀手一样将电影剪碎成一个个场景化的拼图，最终电影呈现的也是一副让人震撼的拼贴画，提喻法是由美国麻省理工大学教授威兼·戈登于1944年提出的一种利用外部事物启发思考、开发创造潜力的方法，戈登发现，当人们看到一件外部事物时，往往会得到启发思考的暗示，即类比思考。而这种思考的方法和意识没有多大联系，反而是与日常生活中的各种事物有紧密关系。而这一方法也是考夫曼电影的核心，理解了这一方法观看考夫曼的电影也就能理解导演所要表达的核心。

《我想结束这一切》的故事场景不多，在一对情侣的故事中穿插了一个老人的日常生活，暗示大篇幅的场景都是老人的内心想象或者回忆。电影起始于一个雪天，一对情侣要开车赶去见男方的父母并一起吃晚餐，在路途中两人展开对话，涉及生活以及个人的情感。电影之所以被称为光影的魔法也在于此，电影的开篇就是考夫曼的一个障眼法，简单的车内场景却是架空于现实的，在人的心理活动中，空间和时间是可以任意扭曲所以男女主角的对话实则是外层人物的内心剖析，考夫曼通过女主角名字的不停变化也在提醒观众，人物不是真实的而是外层回忆里混合的人物，而事件也非真实发生的，只是通往回忆的小径而已。在到达父母家后，屋内的时间开始更加扭曲和抽象，时间的概念在屋内变得无序，父母以各个年龄段的身份出现，转念一想我们在回忆过去某个事件时不也是这样吗，充满矛盾和时间的无序。出演男方母亲的女演员也是恐怖片的常客，选用这个角色考夫曼也是有意为之的，室内的场景明显要诡异和阴森一些，各种恐怖片的视听也被应用于此，譬如洗衣机里重复被拿出的衣服，无人回应的楼梯，陡然出现的人物这些恐怖片常用的桥段也被考夫曼应用于此，在这里的目的而不是让观众得到惊吓，是为了表明重复的、碌碌无为的日常才是最恐怖的场景。在离开父母家男女主在返程时路过一家冰淇淋店这也是电影最有趣的一个场景之一，店员诡异的对话以及男主莫名的退让都让这个场景充满神秘感，因为对这个节点的兴趣特意找来考夫曼的采访来解读。首先考夫曼解释了冰淇淋店的店员包括剧中所有角色都来自主角记忆中的人物，但是考夫曼没有明说，他还提到那几个咯咯诡异发笑的女店员或许就是被困在主角内心的一些人物，他们就像现实世界的店员一样有更换，也有交流，所以她们熟识男主角也还对男主角进行挑逗。考夫曼想营造的是一个梦幻的时刻，在自己内心被停留的一个过往时刻，在这里充满熟悉的过往也纠缠着问题的根本。考夫曼还提到原著小说中女男主角是停留在一家乳制品甜点店前，但是他不能很好的应用这个场景，所以他进行了更改按照自己的想法让它更神秘和本土化。在旅程的终点，男女主角在争吵后各自迷失在雪中，而现实的老人也孤身死在车里，这一个悲凉的故事也因此画上句点。

在看完全片后想到了很多类似意识流电影在梦境或心理层面的活动上展开叙事，比如大卫林奇的《穆赫兰道》、悬疑片经典《生死停留》，考夫曼显然也对这样的叙事方式十分青睐，因为更贴近他对人生哲理的思辨，在考夫曼的电影对话中也串联了诸多对科学、艺术、文学的见解，所以对空间和时间的把玩从不是考夫曼根本的叙事架构只是为了能满足那些跨越一切的思辨阐述。思考的人都是痛苦的，不管这是否是考夫曼的收关之作，考夫曼留给我们的人生思索都是值得一看的。最后转载电影中女主句朗诵的一首诗《Bonedog》，这也是这部电影的一个缩影或者一段人生的概述。

回家很可怕

无论狗狗是否舔你的脸

无论家中等待你的是一个妻子

还是妻子形状的孤独

回家孤独得可怕

以至于在你回想起你刚刚离开的

那个充满沉重气压的地方时 也带着一些喜欢

因为一旦回家后 一切会更糟

你竟带着渴望地去想 附着在稻草杆上的害虫

路上长时间的路程 道路救援和冰激凌

还有某些云朵特别的形状

和寂静 因为你不想回家

回家是...

就是可怕

而家庭生活的沉默和乌云

仅仅只会徒增普遍的不适感

这样的云其实很可疑

他们的构造物，不同于你留下来的那些物质

你自己是从另一块 多云般的布上裁剪而出

被归还，被剩下

月光下不幸相会

不乐意回归 不该松垮的地方会都松垮

满是线头的布服 抹布般的邋遢 破烂不堪

你回到家里

像是抵达月球的外星人

地球的引力拉扯

现在力量加倍

拉扯松弛了你的鞋带

还有你的肩膀

将你额头上担忧之诗节刻的更深

你回到家里 更为深沉

一口连接至明天的干涸之井

通过一缕虚弱的

如此这般

日复一日 毫无变化 你长长叹气

有时人也会这样

好吧

总之，你回来了

太阳像个疲倦的妓女一样起了又落

天气犹如折断的肢体一样毫无起伏

一切都是静止的 除了你体内潮起潮落般的盐分

你的视线朦胧

你不为外界气象所影响

巨大的蓝鲸 骸骨般的黑暗

你回来了

带着X光的视线

你的眼睛已成为一种饥饿

你带着变异天赋 来到家中

来到一个骨头之家

现在你看到的一切

所有一切

都是骨头

查理·考夫曼的剧本构思奇特，充满了无拘无束的幻想和荒诞不羁的人物，情节发展也是令人捉摸不透，自然获得了鬼才编剧的美誉。他早在1999年就凭天马行空的《傀儡人生》而一举成名，进入到千禧年后，更接连创作出《人性》、《改编剧本》、《美好心灵的永恒阳光》等剧本，捧红了斯派克·琼斯和米歇尔·贡德里这两位以拍摄MV起家的文艺片导演。直到2008年考夫曼才执导自己的处女作《纽约提喻法》，没想到的是，等了12年他才再次执导真人电影，那就是今年这部作品《我想结束这一切》。

尽管相隔多年重出江湖，但是考夫曼依旧不按常理出牌，在貌似简单的男女情感故事里编出超级诡异的情节，烧脑程度直逼同期上映诺兰的《信条》。众说纷纭的解读似乎成为了这部奇作的最高待遇，从细节中抓到蛛丝马迹并完整拼凑出剧情成为影迷欣喜若狂的时刻。对于读过原著小说的观众来说，这无异于是一次绝妙的体验，而对于大部分观众而言，毫无准备地看完这部考夫曼的新作，如坠雾中和莫名其妙才是最真实的自然反应。

考夫曼大胆地将主人公的心理投射转化成一对年轻情侣，两人驾车前往男主角家中的路上闲聊，两人所有的对白和内心想法均出自主人公临死前的思绪和意识。这种意识流的叙事令作品呈现出玄幻飘渺的观感，不合逻辑的情节和超现实的画面接踵而来，女主角的名字（甚至面孔）不断变化，而在男朋友家中样貌年龄不断变换的父母这段情节最为瞩目。

▲在男主角家中的情节最为惊艳

然而，在我看来，这种不断变换人称视点的意识流叙事方式似乎更适合文学作品，因为在文学作品中的叙事人称的转换往往轻而易举，毕竟只是文字。而在电影里，这种叙事观点的变换往往要依赖影像，要么是回忆，要么是相似的人物。在这部作品中，这种操作显然未如人意。尽管老校工的线索在影片开始便出现，但是在大部分叙事过程中都隐藏不见，前置的人物是误导观众的男女主角，将实际不存在的人物当作重点角色来进行刻画，这种叙事策略相当冒险。

观众已花去四分之三的时间对男女主角产生了共情，到最后秘密揭露之后，观众要迅速调整已有的感受，并将这种复杂的观感从男女主角移情到这个老头身上，一时间难以让观众找到两者之间的情感共通点是意料之中的事。尽管导演后来用一场发生在校园里的舞蹈场景来努力实现这种情感的过渡，这种舞台剧的表现手法在考夫曼处女作《纽约提喻法》里令人惊艳，那部影片的主人公是戏剧导演，他导演的戏剧与自己的人生逐渐合二为一。然而，这种手法在此却带来生硬突兀的感觉，此前主人公幻想出来的男女主角情节，根本没有融洽地衔接上这场主人公现身参与的舞蹈表演。

▲绝大部分情节是两人在车内的对话

除此之外，考夫曼显然也没能掌握好对白与影像表现两者的分寸。男女主角两人在汽车里大段的对话戏份显得枯燥单调，从物理到诗歌，再到影评人对卡萨维蒂名作《醉酒的女人》的分析等等不一而足。丰富而芜杂的话题有过于炫耀的成分，也许还有导演夹带私货的嫌疑。这部分在车内谈话的处理基本上照搬了文学手法，似乎欠缺了一些影像上的表达。相比之下，女主角在男主角父母家中的段落明显有趣多了，不停变换年龄和容貌的父母，优雅诡异的室内设计等等都将文字中难以实现的部分得到出彩的影像化处理。

尽管这部作品没能如导演12年前的处女作《纽约提喻法》令人惊艳，但是考夫曼执导的作品主人公都不约而同地具有无法摆脱的宿命和悲剧色彩。死亡这个话题一直萦绕着主人公的思绪，无论是纽约的戏剧导演，还是籍籍无名的老校工，他们在人生道路上遇到过不少美好的事物，也曾得到过爱情和亲情的眷顾，但是到最后却落得孑然一身的无依状态。幸福对他们而言要么是转瞬即逝的珍稀体验，要么是在绵绵不绝的回忆/幻想中用来聊以自慰的兴奋剂。死亡和孤独才是他们最终的归宿，这也是考夫曼导演的作品中永恒不变的主题。

初见的趣味

电影一开始我便被女主碎碎念的台词吸引了，因为那是我一直最爱的标准的意识流文本，我总能在这样的语气中找到某种平静。我的喜欢总源自他们的真诚的矛盾，正如她嘴里所说的那些“假不了的想法”。三分钟后，我便做出了自信的判断——这肯定是一部适合自己的电影。

电影抛出了第一个让人眼前一亮的设定。心中涌出一份诡笑的狂喜。我迷上了女主不由自主的内心独白。导演继续“说明”着他的趣味设定。我开始耐心的端倪起女主的男友这一角色，回忆着他给我的第一印象，想起了他是自己17年看过的英剧《奥丽芙·基特里奇》里的一个重要角色，不由地，那个暴发户的形象就和眼前这个角色产生了一些重合。这使我更好地跟随了女主的厌倦和担忧……她不断的神游，不断的被打断。慢慢地我适应了这对情侣的感情所呈现出的形状。看他们聊路边的秋千也十分有趣。直到我注意到偶尔出现的老头画面、窥探的镜头、女主变色的上衣……电影就朝着兴奋但云里雾里的方向展开了……

我很喜欢这首叫做《骨狗》的散文。这与我喜爱文学的理由统一，那绚丽深刻的文字也正是我梦寐以求想要写出的！这又一次点燃了我对这部电影的热情。女主平静的背读着它，不同机位的镜头不断切换着。我第一次感受到了电影的寒冷……

严重剧透警告——————————

回首的趣味

完全看完电影后，我陷入了一种陌生却格外清醒的绝望，脑中感叹着“原来失败与失败之间也存在着天壤之别”“这恐怕是世上对父母最残忍的责备了”一股前所未有的孤寂感彻底包裹了我。“孤独只是一种缺乏耐力的挣扎……”自己是不是也是那头从内部被缓慢啃食的猪呢？我和电影里描述的那头猪存在区别吗？我陷入了自己惧怕的悲伤泥沼之中……

当我从这份内心挣扎中摆脱后，我无所事事的去试着了解导演的意图，电影的主旨，我发现了另一份“趣味”。

原来，电影中的所有角色、对白、歇斯底里、诡异的狂笑、不断切换的时间都只是老年杰克一人分饰多人，在临死之前在脑中排练的一场戏而已。而这一场戏在他残余的生命里却不知重复过了多少遍……他“扮演”着所有人：他的父母来自他的记忆；歇斯底里的年轻自我；他的女友也只是自己分裂出来的一个旁观者……

他用自己来嘲讽自己，赞美自己，认同自己，给予着自己一份亲密，反复阻止着自己走向生命的终结。

父母在我眼中的刻板印象

我们心怀不甘或怨恨只因无法独自一人去完成那份释怀。当一段感同身受的文字出现在我面前，仿佛自己也得到了某种关怀，她轻声地在你胸口吐露着，你并不是世上唯一承受这份剧痛的人。

于是你选择“丑化”了脑中有关父母的记忆，他们对你的不屑就像一种恶疾般无法从身体里取出，他们无知、愚蠢、缺乏边界感、生活作风邋遢至极，牙齿的黄垢让他们失去了全部的味觉……你总幻想着当他们了解到真实自我时无法掩饰的尴尬与羞愧。你无数次痛恨着他们重复着有关自己的“烂梗”。连同他们的脆弱也一同被你放大了。

一想到一个几十年都没有对象的儿子带回来了那个父母心念的女朋友的画面就令人痛苦。你俯瞰着与父母之间无法修正的鸿沟，一切让你抓狂的细节，它们正无情地疯狂地暴露着父母对儿子的失望心情。

一想到即使父母早已不在，但脑中的神经却依然会闪现出他们来讥笑自己50岁生日的落寞画面。似乎自己灵魂的一部分将永生与他们粘连在一起。以至于我只能用父亲的身份去表达对母亲的思念……

孤独是永恒的自我认同

可能孤独的人心里，都会出现一个无限认同自我的角色，他会慷慨的赞赏你的爱好和品味，切身的关怀那些无人知晓的付出与委屈。她是相较于自己更为平静的存在，她对你的寂寞怀有世界上最大的包容。她只会安静的注视着你的孤单，但她不能与你一同悲伤。因为她是你最后的一丝理智。因为她同样面临着另一份挑战。她同样无人认同。她无处可藏。

悲剧的意义

可能悲剧的意义是，它能更早的告知你世界的本来面目，让你看清人类存在的缺陷，看清人生与生命的终点；让你带着这份不允许模糊的思辨活下去；让你尽快做出选择，笃定自己的生活方式，让你选择尊重艺术，躲避极端的世俗化和极端的厌世，用审美的眼光来看待本无意义的世界，如尼采所说“真正的悲剧都在用一种形而上的慰藉来解脱我们。”“只有把生命作为一种审美现象来对待，人生和世界才是令人信服的。”

我的人生只有唯一的辩护者，那就是自我。