但是這本書(shū)是我看完米歇爾奧巴馬的Becoming以后看的，前后的文筆水平對(duì)比過(guò)于明顯，畢竟米歇爾奧巴馬是普林斯頓大學(xué)和哈佛大學(xué)的法學(xué)院畢業(yè)的律師背景，遣詞造句要比娛樂(lè)明星強(qiáng)太多，所以Will的這本書(shū)我看了一些開(kāi)頭就暫時(shí)丟在旁邊了。

1863,?Louisiana. Taken from his wife and children to work on a military camp,?Haitian?slave?Peter (Will Smith) makes a?daring escape?through?deadly swamps,?pursued by?slave hunter Fassel (Ben Foster). His aim is to make it to?the Union Army camp?in Baton Rouge,?reunite?with his family — and finally?earn his freedom.

1863年，在美國(guó)路易斯安那州。海地奴隸彼得(Will Smith飾)從妻子和孩子身邊被人帶走，在一個(gè)軍營(yíng)里工作，他勇敢地穿過(guò)致命的沼澤，逃脫了追捕奴隸的獵人法塞爾(Ben Foster飾)的追捕。他的目標(biāo)是到達(dá)巴吞魯日的聯(lián)邦軍營(yíng)，與家人團(tuán)聚，最終贏得自由。

Slavery is a?near-impossible?subject matter to get right on screen.?To sugar-coat it?is to effectively?deny history; to depict it simply as it was,?warts?and all, would result in a?stomach-churning?viewing experience. Modern audiences already understand that slavery is?immoral, so it can run the risk of?feeling self-flattering?for white audiences, while Black audiences might find it just?traumatic. It is a?delicate, sensitive road?to tread, and only a few filmmakers — such as?Barry Jenkins?(The Underground Railroad) or?Steve McQueen?(12 Years A Slave) — have?offered new insight?into one of history’s?most violent, shameful chapters.

奴隸制是一個(gè)幾乎不可能出現(xiàn)在銀幕上的主題。粉飾歷史實(shí)際上就是否認(rèn)歷史；如果把它簡(jiǎn)單地描述成它本來(lái)的樣子，事無(wú)巨細(xì)地描述它，會(huì)給人一種反胃的觀看體驗(yàn)。現(xiàn)代觀眾已經(jīng)明白奴隸制是不道德的，所以它可能會(huì)讓白人觀眾覺(jué)得自我吹捧，而黑人觀眾可能會(huì)覺(jué)得它只是創(chuàng)傷。這是一條微妙而敏感的道路，只有少數(shù)電影人——如巴里·詹金斯(《地下鐵路》)或史蒂夫·麥奎因(《為奴十二年》)——對(duì)歷史上最暴力、最可恥的篇章之一提供了全新的解讀。

With?Emancipation,?Antoine Fuqua?boldly attempts a?new take on that history, looking to tell the story of ‘Whipped Peter’, a real-life slave who became famous worldwide when his mutilated, heavily whipped back was photographed in the 19th century, and quickly became?iconic, a galvanising symbol?for the abolitionist movement. This is?essentially?a?two-hour adaptation?of a photograph, then, and William N. Collage’s script inevitably must?take liberties?with Peter’s story, the details of which are?scarce. But Collage and Fuqua’s?guiding principle?— as that title suggests — is that this is a story of freedom: how one man?escaped bondage, on his own terms, through sheer will and perseverance.

在《解放黑奴》中，安托萬(wàn)·福庫(kù)大膽地嘗試了一種新的歷史，試圖講述“被鞭打的彼得”的故事，一個(gè)真實(shí)的奴隸，當(dāng)他那傷殘的、被嚴(yán)重鞭打的背部，在19世紀(jì)被拍攝后聞名世界，并迅速成為標(biāo)志性的，一個(gè)激勵(lì)廢奴運(yùn)動(dòng)的象征。這本質(zhì)上是對(duì)一張照片的兩個(gè)小時(shí)的改編，威廉·N·科拉奇的劇本不可避免地對(duì)彼得的故事進(jìn)行了隨意處理，而彼得的故事細(xì)節(jié)卻很少。但是，正如標(biāo)題所暗示的那樣，科拉奇和福庫(kù)的指導(dǎo)原則是，這是一個(gè)關(guān)于自由的故事:一個(gè)人如何通過(guò)純粹的意志和毅力，以自己的方式逃脫束縛。

It’s a?noble goal. But in order to?set the scene, the filmmakers?feel obliged to?first give us the same?horrific imagery?common with nearly every film of this kind. So we must endure?sequences of?whipping, deathly screaming, hot-iron branding, cotton-picking in the midday heat,?racial slurs spat?from slave-masters.

這是一個(gè)崇高的目標(biāo)。但為了營(yíng)造場(chǎng)景，制片人覺(jué)得有必要首先給我們幾乎每一部這類電影都有的恐怖畫面。因此，我們必須忍受連續(xù)不斷的鞭打、死亡的尖叫、熱鐵烙印、在正午的高溫下摘棉花、奴隸主的種族歧視唾棄。

In both his face and physicality, Smith convinces as a man who could?survive extreme hardship?and?sustain a sense of self. When Peter eventually rebels, having heard rumours of Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, the film switches gears into a?chase thriller, a cat-and-mouse game between Peter and the?ruthless tracker?Fassel (Ben Foster, excellent). This becomes the?bread-and-butter?of the piece, and while it still feels rather one-note — there are only so many ways to?show misery,?after all — Fuqua finds?thick tension and danger?in every corner. Everything, from alligators to small, rich children?could be a threat.

從他的面部表情和肢體語(yǔ)言來(lái)看，史密斯讓人信服他是一個(gè)能夠在極端困難中生存下來(lái)并保持自我意識(shí)的人。當(dāng)彼得聽(tīng)到亞伯拉罕·林肯的《解放奴隸宣言》的傳言后，最終叛變，電影切換到追逐驚悚片，彼得和無(wú)情的追蹤者法塞爾(Ben Foster飾，演得極好)之間的貓鼠游戲。這成為了這部作品的主要內(nèi)容，盡管它仍然讓人感覺(jué)很單調(diào)——畢竟表現(xiàn)痛苦的方式只有那么多——但福庫(kù)在每一個(gè)角落都有發(fā)現(xiàn)的劇烈的緊張和危險(xiǎn)。任何東西，從短吻鱷到有錢的小孩都可能是威脅。

The film is,?undeniably, singular and sometimes overly simplistic in?its approach. Fuqua, like?Tony Scott?or?Zack Snyder, is primarily?a visual storyteller, led more by his heart than his head, and there is possibly a version of this story from another director that could have been?more probing, more insightful.?(There is also, ideally, one that is?less desaturated, the filmmakers opting for a?washed-out sepia colour?grade that aims for ‘historical tea stain’ but just looks?a bit drab.)

不可否認(rèn)的是，這部電影的手法非常獨(dú)特，有時(shí)還過(guò)于簡(jiǎn)單化。像托尼·斯科特或扎克·斯奈德一樣，福庫(kù)主要是一個(gè)視覺(jué)故事講述者，更多的是由他的心而不是他的頭腦引導(dǎo)，也許這個(gè)故事的另一個(gè)導(dǎo)演的版本可以更深入，更有洞察力。(理想情況下，也有一種不那么飽和度的顏色，電影制作者選擇了一種褪色的深褐色，目的是讓電影看上去有歷史痕跡，但只是看起來(lái)有點(diǎn)單調(diào)。)