随心所欲

戈达尔以蒙田的一句 “You must lend yourself to others, but give yourself to yourself ” 开始电影的叙述。他也曾公开说过，《随心所欲》“is a film on prostitution that tells how a young and pretty Parisian salesgirl gives her body but keeps her soul 娜娜给出了她的身体却留下了自己的灵魂"。 娜娜作为一个妓女，把身体借给别人的表达很明显，但是她怎样留住一部分自己，或者说，怎么样留住自己的灵魂，戈达尔是如何通过电影体现的呢？对此，苏珊·桑塔格在《反对阐释》那篇关于《随心所欲》的文章里写得很直接："But if we ask, how has Godard shown us Nana keeping herself for herself, the answer is: he has not shown it." 答案就是，他其实没有直接展现出来...这就很让人困惑了！（看电影看个半懂不懂，看桑塔格的文章仍然看个半懂不懂。哈哈哈哈哈。）

戈达尔在谈及这部电影的时候还说 “ I wanted to show the ‘adventures of Nana so-and-so’ side of it ...How can one render the inside? Precisely by staying prudently outside.” 展现人物内心的方式就是不去挖掘她的内心。整部电影的确避开了所有心理刻画，很像纪录片的形式，让人琢磨不透。这句话也很明显指向了电影里娜娜前夫保罗讲的关于鸡的故事：The chicken has an inside and an outside. Remove the outside and you find the inside. Remove the inside, and you find the soul. 娜娜和鸡一样，像一个俄罗斯套娃，先是outside，剥掉outside是inside，但还需要剥掉inside才能看到里面藏着的灵魂。但我们作为观众，被戈达尔置于oustide之外，没有办法去把套娃拧开。

桑塔格觉得，娜娜拒绝自己的old identity，脱掉自己的衣服成为妓女的时刻就是她剥掉自己的outside的时候，她的outside就是她的old identity。虽然桑塔格没有继续解释娜娜的inside，但按照她的思路，可以理解为娜娜的new identity，妓女身份，即为她的inside。因此，我猜想当娜娜拒绝自己的inside的时候，就是她灵魂的现身之时。

不像她的朋友 Yvette 和 Yvette 代表的大部分妓女，认为自己做妓女纯属无奈，被糟糕的老公和嗷嗷待哺的小孩，被悲惨的生活所逼迫，娜娜觉得她成为妓女是自己的选择，和他人无关。她是自由的，她有权选择，她也为自己所有行动负责。娜娜为自己保留的自由选择的权力，即她把灵魂留给自己的象征。

I think we’re always responsible. We’re free. I raise my hand – I’m responsible. I turn my head – I’m responsible. I am unhappy – I’m responsible. I shut my eyes – I’m responsible. I forget I’m responsible, but I am.

娜娜觉得，做妓女是她的选择，不做妓女也是自己的自由。因此，当她遇上那个年轻人，并陷入爱河后，她选择放弃她的妓女身份。娜娜要剥去自己的inside，而我们在这之中瞥见了短暂的一丝灵魂之光。她在被Raoul押往交易的地点的车上，问Raoul自己做错了什么。Raoul说 “You must take anyone who pays”，娜娜马上拒绝“ “Not anyone. Sometimes it’s degrading” 。作为一个妓女，娜娜居然还要保留选择客人的权力，要保留“从良”的权力。她的选择，她的自由，她灵魂里的尊严，在别人看来即是错误。娜娜的确为此也承担了责任，付出了生命的代价。

总结来说，我们在当娜娜选择离开自己的outside（她的old identity），后又剥离她的inside（她的妓女身份）时，看到了她为自己保留的灵魂（她“随心所欲”生活的自由和责任）。我大概就是这么理解娜娜，和戈达尔与桑塔格对这部电影的评价的。

Nana: Why are you reading?

Parain: It's my job.

Nana: It's odd. Suddenly I don't know what to say; it often happens to me. I know what I want to say. I think about whether it is what I mean. But when the moment comes to speak, I can't say it.

Parain: Yes, of course. You've read the Three Musketeers?

Nana: I saw the film, why?

Parain: Because in it, Porthos, this is really in Twenty Years Later, Porthos, all strong, a little stupid, he has never thought in his life. He has to place a bomb in the cellar to blow it up. He does it. He places the bomb, lights the fuse, then he runs away of course. But suddenly he begins to think. What about? How is it possible to put one foot before the other? You must have thought about that too. So he stops running. He can't go on. He can't move forward. The bomb explodes, the cellar fell on him. He holds it up with his shoulder. But after a day, or maybe two, he is crushed to death. The first time he thought, it killed him.

Nana: Why did you tell me that story?

Parain: No reason, just to talk.

Nana: Why must one always talk? Often one shouldn't talk, but live in silence. The more one talks, the less words mean.

Parain: Perhaps. But can one?

Nana: I don't know.

Parain: I've found that we can't live without talking.

Nana: I'd like to live without talking.

Parain: Yes, it would be nice, wouldn't it? Like loving one another more. But it isn't possible.

Nana: But why? Words should express just what one wants to say. Do they betray us?

Parain: But we betray them, too. One should be able to express oneself. It has been done in writing. Think: someone like Plato, can still be understood - he can. Yet he wrote in Greek, 2,500 years ago. No one really know the language, at least not exactly. Yet something get through, so we should be able to express ourselves. And we must.

Nana: Why must we? To understand each other?

Parain: We must think, and for thoughts, we need words. There's no other way to think. To communicate, one must talk, that is our life.

Nana: Yes, but it is very difficult. I think life should be easy. Your talk of the Three Musketeers may make a good story, but it's terrible.

Parain: Yes, but it's a pointer. I believe, one learns to talk well only when one has renounced life for a time. That's the price.

Nana: So, to speak is fatal?

Parain: Speaking is almost a resurrection in relation to life. Speech is another life from when one does not speak. So, to live in speech, one must pass through the death of life without speech. I may not be putting it clearly, but there's a kind of ascetic rule that stops one from taking well until one sees life with detachment.

Nana: But one can't live everyday life with... I don't know

Parain: With detachment. We balance, that's why we pass from silence to words. We swing between the two because it's the movement of life. From everyday life one rises to a life we call superior, the thinking life. But this life presupposes one has killed the everyday too elementary life.

Nana: Then thinking and talking are the same thing?

Parain: So I believe. Plato said so, it's an old idea. One cannot distinguish the thought from the words that express it. An instant of thought can only be grasped through words.

Nana: So one must talk and risk lying?

Parain: Lies too, are part of our quest. Errors and lies are very similar.

Nana: (Tries to interrupt)

Parain: I don't mean ordinary lies, like I promise to come tomorrow, but I don't, as I didn't want to. You see, those are ploys. But a subtle lie is a little different from an error. One searches and can't find the right word. That's why you didn't know what to say. You were afraid of not finding the right word, that's the explanation.

Nana: How can one be sure of having found the right word?

Parain: One must work. It needs an effort. One must speak in a way that is right, doesn't hurt, says what has to be said, does what has to be done, without hurting or bruising.

Nana: One must try to be in good faith. Someone told me: "There is truth in everything, even in error."

Parain: That's true. France didn't see it in the seventeenth century. They thought one could avoid error, and what's more, that one can live directly in the truth. It isn't possible. Hence Kant, Hegel, Germany philosophy: to bring us back to life, and makes us see that we must pass through error to arrive at the truth.

Nana: What do you think about love?

Parain: The body had to come into it. Leibnitz introduced the contingent. Contingent truths and necessary truths make up life. German philosophy showed us that in life, one thinks with the servitudes and errors of life. One must manage with that, that's true.

Nana: Shouldn't love be the only truth?

Parain: For that, love would always have to be true. Do you know anyone who knows at once what he loves? No. When you are twenty you don't know. All you know are bits and pieces, you make arbitrary choices. Your "I love" is an impure affair. But to completely at one with what you love you need maturity. That means searching, that is the truth of life. That's why love is a solution, on condition that it is true.

字幕来源: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUp_du3awI0

与Nana交谈的学者为法国哲学家 Brice Parain (Courcelles-sous-Jouarre, 10 March 1897 - 20 March 1971 ) //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brice_Parain

别跟我扯什么存在主义，别扯什么民主、自由，别扯什么马克思。。。

骗局，统统都是骗局。

近二百年来，人类唯一的“进化”，就是发明了一大堆华丽的辞藻，来粉饰自己的欲望。

难道不是吗？“理想、梦想”——你不就是想要台兰博基尼吗？？“马克思”——打砸抢烧你还有理了是吧？？“民主”——你丫不就是想痛痛快快骂人吗？？“爱情”——不就是下半身觉醒了嘛？？有种你领证啊

你要自由是吧，good, 你可以。随心所欲吧，live your life吧，你是自由的。

“但是”，现实是残酷的。

事实上神偏偏没给人装上翅膀。没错，人只有一双腿，人注定只能劳苦一生，奔波忙碌，汗流浃背，换取口粮。

你要“自由”，可以啊。但是，得到这“自由”的同时，你也失去了人的身份——不再是人，不再享有人的待遇了。

“别以为我不会向那女孩开枪。”“我忘装子弹了，你来吧。”黑帮分子与其说冷酷，不如说不耐烦。因为，不过是个“妓女”，不是嘛？没错，你再怎么清纯无辜，再怎么楚楚动人，你终归不过是个妓女，是特殊身份的人。对你，实在难以激起同情心枪下留情（我脑中闪过那句老生常谈”命运的礼物和标价“）。

你自由的同时，你也变成了一个“物品”。你可以不理神，但你不能指望神仍眷顾你吧？

影片分为12个章节，通过12个生活片段的组接呈现了一个追求演员梦的年轻女孩在电影梦碎后为了钱成为了妓女，与嫖客产生感情后想要过上正常生活却被杀死的故事。戈达尔几乎舍去了一切外在的戏剧冲突，用大量安娜.卡里娜的脸部特写，动作和招牌式的旋转横移镜头在各自成立的片段中将内在戏剧张力逐步呈现。急起急停的配乐依旧延续着戈达尔反常规的试听语言实验。

开头女主娜娜在咖啡厅与男友分手的片段两人始终背对镜头，这一省略人物信息的反常规影像在挑战观众观影逻辑的同时也加深了影片的无望气质。她在唱片店柜台双眼无神吊儿郎当的工作状体在横移镜头下将工作细节随着角色的移动充分展现。她因为没钱被房东赶了出来，无家可归的娜娜在影院看徳莱叶的《圣女贞德》，圣女贞德被宣判后流泪的脸部大特写与娜娜流泪的特写交相辉映，现实与电影同时被审判。她成为了妓女，她为自己工作，她拒绝接吻。她为了赚到更多钱，跟随陌生男人加入了有组织的卖淫团队。在化妆，揽客，脱衣，收钱的蒙太奇中画外音以提问和回答的方式播报着妓女守则和价格清单。戈达尔是用蒙太奇表现幽默的高手。她在桌球厅里的独舞俏皮可爱，旋转横移镜头一气呵成，文艺的妓女。她在咖啡厅与哲人的对话：

人为什么总是必须交谈？说得越多，话意味着更少。

生存离不开交谈。

我想离开交谈的活着。

那更不错，但是不可能。

我们为什么一定要相互了解？

我们必须思考，思考使我们需要说话。

是的，但很艰苦。

只有当一个人暂时已经放弃生命，才学的好交谈。

那么，说话是致命的？

说话是几乎关系到生命复苏的，说话是来自当一个人不说话时的另一个生命。生活在对话中，人必须无声的通过生命的死亡。有一种禁欲主义的规章是阻止人交谈得好直到有人能超然于世。

我们平衡，所以我们从静默到说话，我们在两者间徘徊，因为这是生活的运动。但这生活预示着人每天都在被谋杀。

想和说是同样的事情吗？

柏拉图说人不能从说的话中分辨出思想，想法的瞬间只能通过话来抓住。

所以就有人说话并冒着说谎的风险？

谎言也是我们寻求的一部分，错误与谎言是极其相似的。一句精妙的谎言与错误还是有些许不同的。找来找去还是不能从中找到真的话，那就是你为什么不明白你要说什么，你担心找不到真话。

怎样才能确定找到了真话？

人一定会用正确的方式说话的，说他不得不说的，做他不得不做的来远离伤害。

凡事皆有对的成分，即便在错误中。

康德与黑格尔说让我们回归生命的本质，让我们明白只有认清了错误才可获知真相。

你对爱有何看法？

这是人都要面对的事情。随机真相和必要真相构成了生活，在生命中，人只考虑生命的劳苦和错误，那人一定会设法应付真相。

爱不应该是唯一的真相吗？

爱应该会总是真的，你知道任何马上知道他所爱为何的人吗？不，你20岁时不知道，你只知道零碎的东西，做出武断的选择。你的“我爱”是不纯的事物，要完全的去爱你所爱的，需要探求，这就是生命的真谛。

她爱上了一个嫖客，她停止了接客，憧憬爱和未来。她违反了妓女守则，倒在了枪口下。