汉娜史密兹的终极辩护（The Reader)

（自己的文字相比起‘The Reader’ 电影本身显得苍白并且缺乏条理，因而本来只是强烈希望大家去看电影，没有写影评的打算。不过因为有洪爷这样草草看了个大概就评论的例子:)，出于对本片的热爱，我决定为电影中的女主人翁汉娜写下这份辩护书。如果你没有看过本片或者看过但对本片不感兴趣，请跳过本文）

 

  

   

 

The Reader, 1995

 

 

New York Times 畅销书 ‘The Reader’小说原著作者Bernhard Schlink，是一个二战后期出生的德国法律学者和作家。在创作’Der Vorleser’（The Reader） 的时候，Schlink有意无意间将自己的部分经历投射到小说中米高的影子里去，包括孩童时的政治氛围，法律系大学生的生活，和成长后的大状身份。

 

不过在改编成电影剧本后，真正被安排来替Schilink说话的，则是两个不太受关注的角色。编剧用了这两个角色表达出原著作者的真实声音和他所宣扬的法律理念。本文后附录上这二个角色，米高年轻时的法律系教授Rohl和同学Diete电影中一段辩论的剧本。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bruno Ganz – Professor Rohl

 

 

这场辩论发生远在汉娜罪名宣判之前。辩论里，Rohl 说

’To prove murder you have to prove intent.’

 

审判结束，汉娜的罪名是谋杀300个在教堂里烧死的囚犯。显然她并没有这样的意图。如她所说，她只是为自己看守的岗位负责任。作者借此带出质疑这场谋杀裁决是否公正的伏笔。作者同时围绕着Rohl 的话 ’Remember, the question is never ‘Was it wrong?’ But ‘Was it legal?’ And not by our laws, no, by the laws at the time.’ 展开汉娜那个看似毫无逻辑，又软弱无力的自辩。但由始至终，汉娜都没有在法庭上，像其他看守一样否认自己的罪行，她所辩护的只是她战时尽忠职守。

 

一边是战时狱卒的‘敬业’，一边是战争结束二十年后的打着‘人道主义’旗帜的裁决。。。这点就是在小说里作者要着重陈述的论点。战争时期和战争结束后，我们要用道德还是法律去约束人们的行为？

 

Rohl 在另一段话里阐述了道德和法律的关系

‘Societies think they operate by something called morality. But they don’t. They operate by something called law.

 

…Yes. The law is narrow. On the other hand, I suspect people who kill other people tend to be aware that it’s wrong.’ （这句暗示里汉娜已经为自己的错误感到内疚）

 

当法官审问汉娜，是否由她独自撰写报告的时候，其余5个看守纷纷将矛头指去汉娜。汉娜有点错愕，她反问: ’Does it matter who did?’ 这一细节呼应了后来米高去探望汉娜，汉娜对他说：‘It doesn’t matter how I feel. The dead are still dead.’的一幕。汉娜感到因自己而死的人已不能复生，是去追究或是推搪是谁的责任也不能改变的事实。所以在法官再三要求笔迹鉴证下，在那一瞬间汉娜闪过不肯承认自己是文盲的念头，但更多是因为她感受到内心愧疚的折磨。她觉得自己有罪，所以也无谓再多笔迹鉴证此一举了。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bruno Ganz 还饰演过。。。

 

 

从电影开始的场景里可以看到，汉娜平静而孤独地生活，起居极为简朴，几乎没有任何喜怒哀乐地生活着，是什么人才会过过这样的生活？只有听到米高为她阅读的文学，或者在教堂里观看圣诗班的吟唱，她才会展露出自己多愁善感的一面。作战想要勾勒的，就是一个内心本善良，但因为没有受过教育而愚昧，不懂人情世故的劳动妇女形象。

 

可能正因为愚昧，汉娜选择了独自承担了6个守卫应共同分担的罪行。

 

米高虽然知道汉娜不识字，但他不可能在庭上为汉娜讲出这个事实。年轻有为的他无法大庭广众之下坦诚一段和大自己二十年的女人的不伦关系，不说她曾无情地离开自己，更让他无法接受的是，这个女人是大家眼里的杀人狂魔。

 

米高起初对汉娜的情，只能是因为少男时第一个接触的异性，更倾向于对她肉体的痴迷，说不上爱情。电影也没有在他们的爱情上多费笔墨，洗澡，阅读和造爱就基本上是他们的所有情感生活了。随后，米高由对汉娜情感上的迷恋，过渡到不解，伤感和愤恨。另一方面，理智上，他是一个受过法学教育的知识青年，却因为无法客观地履行在庭上为汉娜叙述真相的义务，而强烈怪责自己。这种复杂情感扭结，转化成一种忏悔和救赎般的精神寄托，缠绕了他半生；他始终都无法向人倾述这段隐晦的经历，导致了他生活上的许多不幸。小说中最攒观众眼泪的部分是，即使像米高这样曾经深爱着汉娜的人，也无法在事隔多年，汉娜即将出狱的时候原谅她的过失，那么又有什么人可能去了解到汉娜的孤独和痛苦。

 

 

 

当米高用手扫去墓碑上的枯叶，他的心结最终随着她的逝去而解开。。。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kate Winslet – Hanna Schmitz

Ralph Fiennes – Michael Berg (Old)

 

 

小说通过汉娜和米高的悲剧，让观众换了一个角度去反思战争。战争中的受害者是否还仅是那个狭义的’受害者’？

 

另一方面，作者尝试去宣扬一个法学和哲学观念：在一个紧密结合的民族或者任何组织里，成员应该为彼此间的行为平分责任。为什么在战争时期，所有公民默认、支持了侵略和屠杀的合法性并且参与其中，在战争失败后他们要倒戈去找一小部分代罪羔羊去承担责任？战争行为应该是一个国家全部公民的共同罪行。

 

像汉娜一样，不曾接受过教育的人容易受到教唆而麻木地做出残忍的事情，这是我觉得作者想要表达的另外一个副题。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Davide Kross – Michael Berg (Young)

 

 

有部分影评评价，这是属于Kate Winslet一人的独角戏，横扫包括奥斯卡的数个影片评选的影后头衔实至名归。

 

这里当然赞同Kate 的演技，甚至觉得她在Internal Sunshine 里边的演技已经无可挑剔；但这不能埋没了两个饰演米高的演员，Ralph Fiennes和David Kross 的精湛演出。值得一提的是，参演时仅17岁的David Kross 分别扮演刚认识汉娜时的清纯羞涩的15岁米高，和知道真相后，郁郁愤恨的22岁米高都非常细腻出色。

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

那场辩论的剧本原文

 

LECTURE ROOM. HEIDELBERG LAW SCHOOL.

The small STUDENT GROUP is now rattling around informally in the big lecture room.

 

ROHL:

I need to correct an impression. Dieter said yesterday this was about justice. But is it?If it were about justice you might ask why has it taken so long?

 

The war ended twenty years ago. Remember, there’ve been no significant trials between

Nuremburg in 1946 and the Auschwitz trials a couple of years ago. That’s a long

gap. What’s the reason for the gap?

 

ROHL waits a moment for a STUDENT to answer.

 

DIETER

I’d have thought it was obvious.

 

ROHL

Say.

DIETER

Cowardice. It’s cowardice, isn’t it? It’s bad conscience. It’s the big cover-up.

 

ROHL

Go on.

 

DIETER

After the war. The German people didn’t want to look at what they’d done…

 

…

 

ROHL

What did your father do, Dieter?

 

DIETER

If you want to know, he was in the Waffen SS.

 

There are some smiles, but DIETER rides over the reaction.

 

DIETER

That’s what I mean, that’s what I’m saying. So were a million other Germans.

 

ROHL

That’s exactly my point. That’s why it’s better not to pretend this is about justice. Forgive me, nor is it about getting into an emotional state. It has no purpose if it’s just the young giving their parents a bad time. There’s a silence. That’s clearly why some of them are there.

 

MARTHE

So what is it about? What do you think?.

 

ROHL

Societies think they operate by something called morality. But they don’t. They operate by something called law.

 

You’re not guilty of anything merely by working at Auschwitz. 8,000 people worked at Auschwitz. Precisely 19 have been convicted, and only 6 for murder. To prove murder you have to prove intent. That’s the law. Remember, the question is never ‘Was it wrong?’ but ‘Was it legal?’ And not by our laws, no, by the laws at the time.

 

DIETER frowns, unhappy.

 

DIETER

But isn’t that…

 

ROHL

What?

 

DIETER

Narrow?

 

ROHL

Yes. The law is narrow.

 

ROHL looks unapologetic.

 

ROHL

On the other hand, I suspect people who kill other people tend to be aware that it’s wrong.

 

…

 

Dieter:

‘I started out believing in this trial, I thought it was great, now I think it’s just a diversion.

 

…You choose six women, you put them on trial, you say ’They were the evil ones’. Brilliant! Because one of the victims happened to write a book! That’s why they’re on trail and nobody else. Do you know how many camps there were in Europe?

 

…People go on about how much did everyone know? ‘Who knew?’ ‘What did they know?’ That isn’t the question. The question is ‘How could you let it happen?’ And better ‘why didn’t you kill yourself when you found out?!’