欢迎安装高清版[一起看]电影APP
剧照
剧情介绍
朱达（马丁·兰道 Martin Landau 饰）是一名事业有成的眼科医生，他不仅在学术界取得了稳固的地位，更热心的投入到了慈善事业中去。在外人眼中，朱达和妻子米利亚姆（克莱尔·布鲁姆 Claire Bloom 饰）无疑是一对模范夫妻，两人的婚姻长久而稳定，可是实际上， 这么多年来，朱达一直和一个名叫多罗瑞斯（安杰丽卡·休斯顿 Anjelica Huston 饰）的女子保持着亲密的关系。令朱达头痛的是，多罗瑞斯已经无法再忍受自己秘密情人的身份了，咄咄逼人的她甚至向朱达发出了威胁，要让他们的关系公布于世。 除了朱达，克里夫（伍迪·艾伦 Woody Allen 饰）也遇到了自己的难题，他那讨人厌的大舅哥莱斯特（阿伦·阿尔达 Alan Alda 饰）想要拍摄一部自传性质的纪录片，克里夫被迫成为了纪录片的导演。在忍受莱斯特恼人个性的同时，克里夫遇见了自己的真命天女哈莉（米亚·法罗 Mia Farrow 饰）。最佳拍档4：千里救差婆如花如荼2022恋爱Flops坂上之云第三部少女的世界第二季搞定岳父大人2012敬子的手监查役野崎修平青花移民保姆好雨时节马蒂亚斯与马克西姆拾犬拾美次世代机动警察：首都决战老捕快天眸之爱末日深眠三个月开玩笑第一季家里比较烦与君行千年湖唔该借歪暴徒小镇彝海结盟下北泽之人生最糟的一天信号 长期未解决事件搜查组 剧场版情定红海滩张震讲故事之三更夜误杀瞒天记原声暗金丑岛君：完结篇国家葬礼神灵之战搞错人洞1960火箭日本的天空下花样排球2曙光谍影重重3落鸟极速枪王恨之入骨新闺怨条条大道通罗马
长篇影评
1 ) 潜意识的奴隶
这一段中本我和自我进行了极强的对抗，一人便完成了很不错的戏剧冲突。更有趣的是接下来的一段黑白片，同本片一样，画右的人一直是作为画左的人的潜意识出现的，看似是别人在说服自己，其实最终是自己说服了自己。（刚才室友梦呓了，他用山东话说：“NMGB."）
2 ) [转发]Roger Ebert的影评
I remember my father telling me, “The eyes of God are on us always.”
The man who remembers is Judah Rosenthal, a respected ophthal-mologist and community leader. As Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemean-orsopens, he is being honored at a banquet. He lives on three acres in Connecticut, drives a Jaguar, built a new wing on the hospital. During the course of the movie he will be responsible for the murder of a woman who loves him.
She dies not because of his passion but for his convenience. In this
darkest and most cynical Allen comedy—yes, comedy—he not only gets away with murder but even finds it possible, after a few months, to view the experience in a positive light. If the eyes of God are on him always, what does that say about God?
Woody Allen has made more than forty movies; the best are Annie
Hall(1976), Hannah and Her Sisters(1987), Crimes and Misdemeanors(1989), and Match Point, which premiered at Cannes 2005. The new film resembles Crimes and Misdemeanors in the way it involves a man who commits murder to cover up an affair, but Match Pointis more firmly a film noir, and Crimes is frankly a complaint against God for turning a blind eye on evil.
Judah, played by Martin Landau as a man of probity and vast self-importance, is, or thinks he is, a moral man. That has not prevented him from having an affair for two years with Dolores (Anjelica Huston), a flight attendant with whom he has walked on the beach and discussed marriage.
But Judah will never divorce his wife, Miriam (Claire Bloom), to marry Dolores. Nor is he capable of confessing his sin to Miriam: “Miriam won’t forgive me,” he tells a rabbi. “She’ll be broken. She idealizes me.” That the conversation with the rabbi is imaginary takes away nothing from its ruth-lessness. What Judah is arguing is that Dolores must die because if Miriam found out about the affair it would—what? Destroy Miriam? Dolores? No, it would destroy his image and stature in the eyes of his wife and his community, and he thinks that is worth killing for.
To be sure, Judah backs into murder. Dolores has been acting dan-gerously. She sent a letter to Miriam that Judah only barely intercepted. She called from a gas station ten minutes down the road, threatening to come to his house and tell Miriam “what she needs to know.” Judah discusses his problem with his brother Jack ( Jerry Orbach), who has connections with the Mafia. “They’ll handle it,” Jack tells him. Handle? “I can’t believe I’m talking about a human being,” Judah says. “She’s not just an insect to be stepped on. . . .”
Yet he steps on her. Dolores knows about certain “financial impro-prieties” that Judah has committed; funds from one place were useful in another. Threatened with exposure on both fronts, Judah makes a call to Jack, and Jack calls back: “It’s taken care of.” Now listen to Judah: “I can’t speak. I’m in shock. God have mercy on us, Jack.” How about a little mercy for Dolores? Judah has mastered the art of ameliorating his crime by being shocked at it. Yes, he had Dolores killed—but if he feels terrible about it, doesn’t that prove he’s not an entirely bad man?
The movie intercuts this tragic story with a comedy, also about adul-tery. The technique is Shakespearean: the crimes of kings are mirrored for comic effect in the foibles of the lower orders. Allen plays Cliff Stern, a maker of documentaries of stultifying boredom; in one, an old man in thick glasses discusses metaphysics. Cliff is married to Wendy ( Joanna Gleason).
She has two brothers: Ben (Sam Waterston), the rabbi, who is going blind and is being treated by Judah, and Lester (Alan Alda), the creator of incred-ibly successful TV sitcoms.
Cliff detests Lester. Consider the scene where we first see the two
men together; Lester is on the left flanked by his sister and another woman, holding court. Cliff is on the right, slightly more in the foreground, and half-turned away from the action and toward us. He seems barely able to prevent himself from turning to the camera and telling us directly what a jerk Lester is. The visual strategy is subtle but wonderful: Allen delivers a monologue using only body language.
Cliff is offered a job directing a documentary about Lester. “You
weren’t my first choice,” the Alda character cheerfully tells him. “I’m doing it as a favor to my sister.” While making the film, Cliff meets a production assistant named Halley (Mia Farrow) and falls for her. They have a little non-affair; Cliff is not made for big affairs, but for modest displays of erotic self-deprecation. He proposes marriage to her, despite the fact that he has barely kissed her and is obviously married to Wendy.
So now we have two married men discussing marriage with other
women. That Judah will not really marry Dolores destroys her (“I was at a low point when I met you!” she cries in raw emotion. “You turned every-thing around!”). That Cliff might actually marry Halley, or thinks he might, is fielded by her with tact: she announces a trip to London, thinks they ought to “have some time apart,” and returns engaged to—yes, Lester. Cliff is morally offended by her choice, despite the inarguable fact that Lester is single and available (and also rich and successful), and Cliff is married, poor, and has been fired from the documentary after a scene comparing Lester to Mussolini.
The Woody Allen scenes provide the kind of stand-up self-analysis
and kvetching that his characters are famous for. But what happens in the Martin Landau scenes are as calmly shocking as anything Allen has ever done. In that imaginary conversation with the rabbi, Judah refers to his brother’s offer to “take care” of Dolores. “God is a luxury I can’t afford,” he says. “Jack lives in the real world. You live in the kingdom of heaven.” After Judah learns that Dolores has been killed, he visits Dolores’s apartment, sees that she is indeed dead, and takes her address book and other papers that might link him with her.
“Four months later,” we’re told in a subtitle, the principal characters
are gathered at a wedding. Cliff wanders off, outraged at seeing Halley with the despised Lester. Why should a worthless parasite like Lester get the girl? Judah wanders in the same direction, and the two men have a curious conversation. It turns on the idea of a perfect murder. Judah describes “a murder plot” to Cliff. It is the murder he has gotten away with.
But how does it feel to be responsible for the death of another per-son? Can you live with yourself? “Suddenly it’s not an empty universe at all,” Judah tells Cliff. God occupies it, and has eyes, and sees. “The man is an inch away from confessing to the police.” Then suddenly one morning, he wakes up, the sun is shining, his life is good, and he has returned to “his protected world of wealth and privilege.” The moral of this story?
“We define ourselves by the choices we make,” Judah says. By choosing to have Dolores murdered, Judah has defined himself as a man of wealth and privilege, respected by society, “idolized” by his wife, and a murderer. He can live with that.
The implications of Crimes and Misdemeanorsare bleak and hope-less. The evil are rewarded, the blameless are punished, and the rabbi goes blind. To be sure, justice is done in the low-road plot: Cliff does not succeed in leaving his wife to marry a girl for whom he would be the worst possible partner, and the rich and triumphant Lester gets the girl and will possibly make her happy, or at least rich. But in the main story Dolores lies in her grave, and Judah finds that life goes on—for him, at least. For Martin Landau, the performance is a masterpiece of smooth, practiced diplomacy,
as he glides through life and leaves his problems behind. Landau is never more effective than when he is shocked and dismayed at his own behavior. It’s as if he’s regarding himself from outside, with a kind of fascination. He sees what he does, and does nothing to stop it. In his own world, he is the eyes of God.
3 ) 利维教授语录
When we fall in love, we are seeking to re-find all or some of the people to whom you were attached as children. On the other hand, we ask our beloved to correct all the wrongs that these early parents or siblings inflicted on us. So, love contains in it the contradiction, the attempts to return to the past and the attempt to undo the past.
I've gone out the window.
But we must always remember that when we are born we need a great deal of love in order to persuade us to say in life. Once we get that love it usually lasts us. But the universe is a pretty cold place. It is we who invest it with our feelings. And under certain conditions, we feel the thing isn’t worth it any more.
(粘自维基)
4 ) 最后一段话
世事难料，生活也有诸多不平之事，在上帝造物的时候，仿佛没有考虑到人类幸福这件事。只有靠我们自己，每个人爱的能力不同，才会赋予这个无情的宇宙以意义。
但是，大部分人，都有能力继续生活下去，甚至从小事中寻找到快乐，比如，从家人，工作，还有从对未来一代的希望中找到快乐，希望他们可以更加理解生活。
5 ) The Difference God Makes
What difference does the God make? He made the universe structured with meaning, and gifted mankind the capacity to love. Thereafter, the universe is no longer imbued with darkness and chaos but light and order. By teaching us how to behave morally and how to love, he teaches us “how to live,” which in the mean time presupposes “life is worth living,” and having these two questions answered is the most significant difference that God makes. In Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors, Ben, a devoted rabbi, tries to help Judah, a illustrious ophthalmologist who also comes from a Jewish background but rejects it, to come up with a solution for his moral dilemma between his wife and mistress. In addition to suggesting a practical movement—to confess the wrong to his wife—Ben points out Judah’s problem of infidelity is not accidental but rooted in his comprehension of the meaning of existence. “You see it as harsh and empty of values and pitiless… and I couldn’t go on living if I didn’t feel with all my heart a moral structure with real meaning, and, forgiveness, and some kind of higher power. Otherwise there is no basis to know how to live.” Although Judah chooses to commit murder against his mistress at last, he is not an entirely evil man—there are still “sparks from his religious background that suddenly stirs up” and he constantly hesitates, questions himself, and torments with guilt. But he is a man of moral weakness, “a man that could not make up his mind.” In the end, he tries to justify himself as conducting under irresistible compulsion of the harsh “reality”. He starts to talk like his brother Jack, who seems to cut himself from the moral structure and God’s eyesight and continuously performing “crimes and misdemeanors” without guilt. “God is a luxury that I can’t afford,” he claims, “I can’t afford to look away form reality; I can’t afford to be aloof.” In my opinion, all their arguments are false. No matter how “desperate” the situation is, man is never deprived of the right to choose. “We are all faced throughout our lives with agonizing decisions,” Prof. Levy says at the conclusion of the film, “We define ourselves by the choices we have made; we are in fact the sum total of our choices. ” Human can always choose to be righteous or evil, and the difference God makes is that he teaches us how to choose. Judah’s suffering is all because of his rejection of God’s guidance on how to choose and live. Like his “nihilist” aunt, he doesn’t believe a moral structure is guarding justice in the world but justice is merely “the advantage of the stronger”. But there is an moral order preserved, however, proved “no matter by the Old Testament or Shakespeare.” The jester Lester is not totally stupid in a way, for he says “Time is passing by… and will make it a fair game.” Moreover, to some extent, the question really is not about “who holds the truth” but “how can one live a good life.” As Halley says, “No matter how elaborate a philosophical system you work out, in the end, it’s gotta be incomplete.” When the philosopher Louis levy jumped out of the window, Judah’s father says “If necessary, I’ll always choose God over truth.” He now appears to be the truly wise man, and it’s the God that makes the difference between life and death. In spite of all above, following the God does not guarantee a “happy end”. It’s true that “if you want a happy ending, you should go instead to see a Hollywood movie,” for life is a tragedy. But tragedy does not equal pessimism and demands pathos. It is necessary for us to understand life as tragedy. Tragedy is among the common man (Arthur Miller). “Events unfold so unpredictably, so unfairly, that human happiness does not seem to have been included in the design of creation,” and yet we, like the tragic heroes who keep falling, “seem to have the ability to keep trying, and even to find joy from simple things like their family, their work, and from the hope that future generations might understand more.” This is the love of life, and it is the difference God makes.
6 ) 关于这个那个的碎碎念
早上起来，甚觉果然黑夜是个好东西。
一家之言，随便看看。
我觉得伍迪艾伦应该不是真正的讽刺上帝说，他只是讽刺的是人们所妄加猜测，且塑造的上帝的形象；觉得他所反对的是人们盲目所崇拜的（可被人塑造的）上帝的形象，而这形象是会随着法律的变化而变化的。
也可以这么说，大多数所谓崇拜上帝的人，其实他们只是遵循由前辈传承下来的规矩（正因如此，片中好几个有关眼科医生的关键点，都是用他小时候的回忆，接受神父的教诲，他的上帝是神父告诉他的上帝）
有句话说人们妄想猜测上帝到底在想什么，这是亵渎神灵，可貌似太多人已经亵渎神灵了，我们凭什么为上帝强加了属于我们自己近乎自作聪明的道德，法律。说白了，所谓的上帝形象，就是政府控制人民的工具。也不得不说的是，效果还非常不错。宗教就是为政治服务的，是有助于和平的。
等同过来，上帝形象是为法律服务的，而道德体系？道德体系就是历史中的法律（废除或未被废除的）的另一种延续。
也正因法律的存在（古至今的影响），使人们建立起所谓的道德底线，如若开始怀疑法律的公正性，怀疑制度的平衡性，那自然，道德底线的动摇也会开始出现。
你说的对和错，几乎都是统治者在你幼儿的时候告诉你，什么能做，什么不能做的，三观也是童年形成的。
但这三观绝对不是上帝教予你的，是“上帝形象”。
因此，上帝形象绝对不等同于上帝般，当他们用善有善报恶有恶报的规规矩矩来质疑上帝的时候，他们已经陷入一种逻辑的死循环了，（因为他们把上帝等同于上帝形象了）
至于上帝是什么，我觉得最大的错误就是人们自以为是的把理想中的上帝塑造成人的形态，更有甚者，说上帝是按照自己的形态创造了人。
我看来，上帝就是天与地。
这样想的话，《罪与错》的观点和线索是有密切的联系的，基础是依托于生活的。
突然想到卢卡努的一句话：
唯有哲学知道什么是神和天的威力，也唯有哲学才明白神和天的威力是没法知道的。
8/10。影片把圣经中罪与罚的意识贯穿于角色心理，杀人者最终要遭受良心上的谴责，观众所希望犯罪行为都受到应有的制裁，但现实并非如此，这种良心谴责随着时间流逝淡化成个人心中隐藏的肮脏秘密。第一段话题严肃而不有趣，拍摄下投资人献媚女友、剪辑对照墨索里尼而被炒的伍迪艾伦自演的后段较为突出。
按电影类别分的话，这是一部喜剧。尽管里面有谋杀，但是电影还是一如既往的艾伦式的喜剧基调。
未免太严肃了，不过，如果今晚没有看这部而是跑去看HAFF那210分钟的闭幕片，估计才是真的要睡着。
five-star director seven-star writer
克里夫被迫成为了纪录片的导演。在忍受莱斯特恼人个性的同时，克里夫遇见了自己的真命天女哈莉（米亚·法罗 Mia Farrow 饰）。
Woody Allen大概在这个片子里面想讲一些关于现实生活中的道德边界，引用的哲学博士讲的话太学术太擦边，印象不深。倒是一直挺喜欢这个小老头的念叨，很有一些比较精辟的搞笑的话。
演技派、深刻的题材都凑齐了，当然是一出好戏。
Don't listen to what your teachers tell you, just see what they look like and that's how you'll know what life is really gonna be like. 噗~开头伍迪艾伦带着侄女看的片子居然是carole的mr.&.mrs. smith....可以和赛末点对着看。
最后的聚会，罪的人与错的人终于坐在一起对话，整部戏都活了，“如果你想要皆大欢喜，就去看好莱坞电影，我们说的是现实世界”。伍迪·艾伦刻薄得令人五体投地。
伍迪艾伦和伯格曼的对话（大约也是他“伯格曼时期”巅峰作品了），两个部分交叉进行。伯格曼部分是伯格曼化的黑色电影，拍得极为精彩，主题上也走到伯格曼常问的“上帝在不在”；伍迪艾伦部分则自反了喜剧的构成。本片后来发展出[赛末点]。
相当喜欢的一部，算是伍迪艾伦80年代仿伯格曼后集大成之作，在技法上把严肃的讲故事与安妮霍尔式的自嘲讽刺结合的非常纯熟，招牌场景也层出不穷，总的来说是伍迪艾伦少数绝对不可错过的片子，力荐
#观影手记# 2395《赛末点》差不多就是这部主题的再一次演绎，这两部对比,就是最好的无敌艾伦和次好的伍迪艾伦之间的差别，虽然《赛末点》的知名度要高得多。牧师代表“盲目”？我更觉得整个故事是命运弄人作恶不一定受惩罚好人未必得好报(善良拉比遭遇不幸;理想主义纪录片小导演对决春风得意电视节目制片人,事业爱情满盘皆输;婚外情,挪用公款,杀死情人的医生,倍受敬仰,事事顺遂)，哲学家的不同解读,我不认可,但好像也无力反驳，这种“多义性”也还蛮有趣。和拉比间关于杀人的告解(对谈)都是幻象?逻辑上确实是，但有什么视听上的暗示吗？很喜欢安杰丽卡休斯顿,但她不适合这个小三角色，看着实在是个收放自如,玩弄男人于股掌的潇洒女人。“上一次我进去一个女人的身体,是去看自由女神像.”，哈哈哈。
好像终于绕了回来，分合结构是《汉娜姐妹》的翻版，两个泾渭分明的故事，之一显然脱胎于《曼哈顿》，另一个后来演化为《赛末点》，把形式与内容的心得拿来重新整合，既像创新也像取巧，两个宗教主题的糅合说服力并不强或说不是重心所在，整体基调还是属于其个人的怀疑精神、调侃趣味和无奈气质。
——我最近一次在一个女人身体里，是在参观自由女神像的时候。。。
说教片，一部讲了《赛末点》《独家新闻》《无理之人》三部都没讲全的，片中许多互文挺完美的。同样是去伦敦，十年前《曼哈顿》结局里You gotta have a little faith in people的破灭——如果【伍迪艾伦有厌女症】假设成立（i don't give a shit），不难看出米亚法罗的离异成熟女性角色和海明威的清纯少女角色的惨烈对比；结尾婚礼上瞎了的Rabbi展现时间的流逝；医生的童年犹太家庭餐桌戏很妙；Alan Alda的第一个伍迪艾伦假想敌角色，和《曼哈顿悬疑谋杀案》里角色的相似之处让人有理由怀疑他只是being himself罢了，片中重复了三遍的名言【喜剧=悲剧+时间】不无道理，但最后医生和伍迪的一番对话暗示了【恐怖故事=未忏悔的罪恶=悲剧+时间=喜剧=生活本身】，嘻嘻；哲学教授角色就是机械降神叭，还好让他自杀了，投机取巧又不忘嘲讽的伍迪老头儿真可爱。
影片有些过于严肃
电影的故事情节有两条主线平行交织而成
由伍迪艾伦编剧和导演的美国存在主义喜剧电影，成功融合了情节剧、《杀人短片》式的哲学探讨和喜剧。裘德道德困境的轮廓——一个人是否能在知道犯下谋杀罪的情况下继续日常生活——唤起了对俄罗斯小说家陀思妥耶夫斯基的《罪与罚》(1866)的核心观点，尽管他提出了一个与小说几乎相反的解决方案。艾伦会在他的电影《赛末点》、《卡珊德拉的梦》和《非理性的人》中重温这个主题。艾伦处理如此多不同音调和声音的连锁故事的能力，凸显了他戏剧家的天赋，一个悔过老人对童年餐桌场景的追忆则暗示了向伯格曼《野草莓》的致敬，其中过去与现在形成了平行切换的关系。关于失明、良心和自知之明的危险而巧妙的隐喻，使故事统摄到一种精美的框架中。
较明显的犹太背景，以表象相对轻松实则沉重的诗意方式处理关于死亡的哲学问题，浓重的伯格曼影子。不要低估伍迪的赤子之心（他自称“较满意的作品”）。最后一段说教真是太好了，我们就是所做选择的总和，不是所有的罪都会被惩罚，不是所有的错都会被发现，生活仍然在无望继续；上帝和真理究竟谁更重要，没有给出的答案，延续在以后作品中。
伍迪·艾伦早期电影的配乐很出彩，多线叙事也算常见，不过这部中“罪”与“错”两条线在最后汇合却是没想到的。看多了伍迪·艾伦，故事走向大同小异，不过前期电影的表达方式要好得多，后来的《卡珊德拉之梦》就太温吞了。P.S.医生回望童年那一段在致敬伯格曼的《野草莓》。