半梦半醒的人生

If you see a light switch nearby,see if it works.You can't do that in a lucid dream.

影片的始终，都没有出现实拍的场景，彻头彻尾的梦境。
看这部影片的观众，就像是附在主人公灵魂上的跳蚤，跟着他旅行。不知道这段旅行的起点是哪，也不知道何时会结束。一切都随着他的潜意识，有时候顺延，时而跳跃。
梦境，就该是这样的吧。像是串联一些无厘头的故事，自己捏造一些人物，看上去活生生的面容清晰，但当仔细想认出他们脸庞的时候却觉得他们的五官会变化流动无法捕捉,越来越模糊。
导演高明地将实拍的场景动画处理化，于是人物和周遭的事物都在晃动游离，失去重心的世界也许是这样的。手持DV拍摄出的抖动效果恰到好处地安在了这里。
会不会我们做梦的时候我们其实都在月球上呢？摆脱了肉体的重量，21克的物质很轻易地加速到超越光速，于是往返于各个星球，各个时代....而造成梦境的一片混乱。
才知道Julie Delpy在除了《Before sunrise》和《Before sunset》那两部影片中还在这里出现了，尽管动画人物的身份，辨别出她还是比较容易的，影片中的类似废话的哲理独白很多，她的一段话挺有趣也挺引人深思，这似乎从日出之前那部就是开始困扰这个导演的问题：
About reincarnation,and where all the new souls come from over time.Everybody always says they're the reincarnation of Cleopatra or Alexander the Great.You know they were a dumb fuck like everyone else.I mean,it's impossible.The world population has doubled in the past 40 years.So if you believe in that ego thing of one eternal soul you have 50% chance of your soul being over 40.For it to be over 150 years old,it's only one out of six......I believe reincanation is a poetic expression of what collective memory is....I read an article by a biochemist not long ago.He said when a member of a species is born it has a billion years of memory to draw on.This is where we inherit our instincts.

影片结束时，一段旅行也结束，一场共鸣也结束，我下意识地按了两下台灯的开关，确定了自己的处境。

非常粗糙的画风，非常枯燥的内容。这实在是我没有料到的。
        尽管是英语片，但却有着小众电影必备的贯穿始终的絮叨——没有联系的出场人物，没有前后文，没有基本的寒暄玩笑，就是这样一个个地直接对着主人公开讲。演讲内容多半是关于人生意义、梦境原理、伦理设想、哲学思辨……我开始还企图要跟上讲话者的思路，努力要弄清楚一个人和另一个讲话内容的主旨与联系。后来就彻底放弃了。我基本上就是那个不断醒来，发现自己在另一个梦境里的主角，能做的就只有面无表情地四处游走，面无表情地装作在听别人宣讲。
        我后来才弄明白为什么这个主题要用动画手法来表现——它明明是拍下真人之后，电脑特效作出来的。因为那些不断抖动的镜头，不断纷纷叉叉的线条，才能显出梦境的意味：不确定，不确定，不确定。
        片子基本上是在挑战普通人的忍耐力，以及“到底你可以坚持到几分钟的时候才睡着”这个实验命题。但是毋庸置疑的是，那些人的絮叨其实都充满思想的力量，可惜是画面，画面之于文字，恰恰就短缺在这个引导别人抽象思考的部分。
        我只是想对编导们说：Nice try。

《半梦半醒的人生》的29段谈话与自白 by idletalk


《半梦半醒的人生》Waking Life——这是一部2001年拍摄的动画片。导演兼编剧理查德林克莱特用DV在奥斯汀拍摄了这部影片，然后使用“interpolated翻拍”程序将图像转换，使得实景增加了程序化的外观看上去象是动画片。就是这样一部看起来不像是动画片的动画片，在当年也没引起什么反响；我却反复看5遍，因为在我看来这可能是21世纪前期最为伟大的影片。

影片的故事非常的简单，主人公一个大学生，他来到了一个超现实的幻境中。他身处的这座城市好象是奥斯汀，但日常生活的规律和秩序似乎完全被打破了。
他从一个地方游荡到另一个地方，不断遇到稀奇古怪的人。最有意思的是他遇见的这些人都在谈论一些宏大高深的话题：从量子论到语言的起源，从存在主义到人的转世再生，从自由意志的荒谬到电影作为一种叙事工具，他陷入一场接着一场的对话中。
他极力想知道自己究竟处在梦境中，还是处于清醒中。但最终他只是发现自己不断苏醒，又不断重新坠入梦境中。他无法摆脱这接二连三地涌现的梦，开始逐渐理解梦的含义，并试着控制梦和周围的环境，分辨苏醒的人生与梦中人生的区别……

大量对话也正是林克莱特作品的一个标志性元素。不同于伍迪艾伦纽约知识分子神经质式的喋喋不休，也不同于埃里克侯麦法国中产阶级长篇大论的交谈，林克莱特呈现的是美国年轻人鲜活而具有时代特色的语言。而且他的不少影片还不是几个人的谈话，而是规模庞大。不过相对于过去的作品，此片中的对话要显得“知识分子气”浓重得多，那些晦涩抽象的哲学命题对观众可绝对是个考验。

在这些繁杂的谈话中我把它切割成了29个片段，并努力以自己的理解诠释其内容。虽然它的丰富我只看到了一角。但时间会证明它的伟大值得我去这样做。

1、船型车司机———任何的事物你都可以不赞同，但重要的是他存在的事实。随大流是大多数人的共性，可最终你会发现你必须去找到自己的非共性所在。

2、大学教授————排除集体共性的过程中，并不一定能找到自我的个性，问题的重点乃在于思考的过程。

3、金发女子————语言所具有的不可沟通性，言语在每个人的心中有着不同的深层含义，也即联系物和凭借物的不同导致人类即使使用的是同一种语言，也存在永远无法沟通的盲点。

4、黑白发男子————望远镜似的人类进化过程（物质——精神）。不同智慧间质与量的转化（毁灭——重生）

5、自焚的男子————人类自毁性与人类社会自毁性存在着共通点。（个人的自杀、病痛和人类社会的战争、自然灾害）。媒体对社会丑恶面的频繁揭露，并无法消灭它，只能迫使人们对其麻木并接受。

6、交欢中的男女————人类记忆与经验在一代一代的遗传着。途径并非来自言语和书籍，而是DNA中的深层存在。

7、监狱中的男子————用复仇的幻想来填补时间。（许许多多的人都在用欲望实践的梦想来填补日常生活的时间）

8、戴眼镜的中年男子————人类的自由很大程度建立在物理规则上。但同时又存在一些不规则的元素来动摇原始的物理规则。可恰恰在某种意义上，不规则的元素也可能是物理规则中的一环。（上帝的决定——人类的自由意志——其中的界限）问题在于外延与内延的边界在哪？

9、宣传车上的男子————突破即定的规则，世界便是即定规则的框架，政治则是即定规则的核心动力。革命的问题不在于是否毁灭，而在于毁灭之后建立什么？

10、戴眼镜的老者————如若中心为“无”，既是空。对任何一个存在说是，既是对所有的存在说是。

11、黑人男子————现有的分类是对知识最大的束缚。我们必须将其解脱重整，使之聚合。在知识的共同领域寻求新知。

12、咖啡厅里的两位女子————人体的细胞在七年的过程里会全部更新。新我的产生，迫使我们肯定不同于旧我，但在认知上我们还是保持着自己与旧我的认同。问题在于延续性。人不可能缺乏延续性的不断的与自我重新认同。

13、播电影的猴子————人在困苦中可以获得的唯一有益知识是：任何事情都有可能发生，有困苦也必有欢乐。

14、白发老者————人类的痛苦有两种，或物质过于缺乏，或物质过于丰富。但在精神层面，人类却一直没有进步，问题在于人类的特性：恐惧和懒惰。

15、写作的男子————伟大的小说不在于其的故事，或者表现形式，而在于人、思想、时间。

16、留大胡子的胖子————梦境与现实，虚幻或真实之间的转化，有时非常简单。特别是当表现物为暴力时，

17、长发男子————梦是自我认同的一种过程，在一定意义上，它与现实没有根本区别。

18、弹琴的男子————梦的意义在于超越自我的存在形式。你可以是任何的一种存在形式，不一定是人类，甚至不一定是物体。

19、穿皮衣的长发男子————有些人醒着也在做梦，因为他们没有梦的意识，他们并不想在梦中得到思想的解放，他们的梦是现实的延续，也就是说是对物质渴望的梦想。

20、卷发男子————沉默……沉默……在这出看来喋喋不休的电影中此时出现了一个沉默看着你的男子。这种手法让我想起国画里的“留白”。人生是需要静默的，那时便是反观自身的时刻。

21、留着“雷鬼”头的四人帮————行动在很多时候只是理念自然而然的放映，但并不能因此就界定它具有明确的目的性。

22、背着背包的男子————梦在于自我感性的存在，寻找一切新的可能性。像旅行一般，向往所有的未知。

23、白衣男子————太阳底下无新事？不。梦具有发掘“新事”的可能性。

24、红发女子————交谈在很多时候只是人类远离孤独与表达礼貌的手段。而交流思想往往却居于其次。

25、爆炸头男子————记忆比忘却需要更大的力量，所以梦中的事情我们便经常遗忘。这与现实何其的相似。

26、光头男子————梦中的自己始终还是无法摆脱现实的投射，所以更多的时候梦中的本体也只不过是现实占优势的复制品。当然，个体存在着差异，但这种差异到底在多大程度上影响着我们？

27、售货员————人类的死亡与植物的枯死一样，都需要进行包裹。死亡是需要进行隐蔽的，因为大多数的人们不想看到这些。但这并不妨害到它们的存在。

28、束发的女子————人与人最终还是需要以某种联系作为纽带。但这种联系究竟应该是一种什么方式。现代人的联系的弱化是否可以用娱乐取代？

29打弹珠的男子————时间想让我们忘记上帝的存在。而永恒也因为时间的存在而变得可惧。但永恒之后还存在时间吗？

            "Dream is destiny."

            Rock out.

            Rock and roll.

            Go, strings. Begin.

            Sara, will you try that, the thing you asked me about?

            - Yeah. - Will you try it a little more subdued?

            - Okay. - Vibrato. Just try it and see what you think.

            But what I want--

            I mean, I want it to sound rich and maybe almost a little wavy...

            due to being slightly out of tune.

            - Do you want it, um-- - I think it should be slightly detached.

            That's what I was wondering.

            Yeah, yeah, you got it.

            Snazzy.

            Okay, pick up to 20 please.

            - Erik, this is a pickup to 20. - Okay.

             1, 2, 3.

            Hey, man, it's me. Um, I just got back into town.

            I thought maybe I could bum a ride off you or something, but that's cool.

            I could probably just take a cab, something like that. Um--

            Yeah, I guess I'll hang out with you later, something like that.

            Ahoy there, matey! You in for the long haul?

            You need a little hitch in your get-along, a little lift on down the line?

            Oh, um, yeah, actually, I was waiting for a cab or something, but if you want to--

            All right. Don't miss the boat.

            - Hey, thanks. - Not a problem.

            Anchors aweigh!

            So what do you think of my little vessel?

            She's what we call "see-worthy." S-E-E. See with your eyes.

            I feel like my transport should be an extension of my personality.

            Voila. And this? This is like my little window to the world,

            and every minute, it's a different show.

            Now, I may not understand it. I may not even necessarily agree with it.

            But I'll tell you what, I accept it and just sort of glide along.

            You want to keep things on an even keel I guess is what I'm saying.

            You want to go with the flow. The sea refuses no river.

            The idea is to remain in a state of constant departure while always arriving.

            Saves on introductions and good-byes.

            The ride does not require an explanation.

            Just occupants. That's where you guys come in.

            It's like you come onto this planet with a crayon box.

            Now, you may get the 8-pack, you may get the 16-pack.

            But it's all in what you do with the crayons,

             the colors that you're given.

              Don't worry about drawing within the lines or coloring outside the lines.

              I say color outside the lines. Color right off he page.

              Don't box me in. We're in motion to the ocean.

              We are not landlocked, I'll tell ya that.

              So where do you want out?

              Uh, who, me? Am I first?

              Um, I don't know. Really, anywhere is fine.

              Well, just--just give me an address or something, okay?

              Tell you what, go up three more streets,

              take a right, go two more blocks,

              drop this guy off on the next corner.

              - Where's that? - I don't know either, but it's somewhere,

              and it's gonna determine the course of the rest of your life.

              All ashore that's going ashore.

              Toot toot!

              The reason why I refuse to take existentialism...

              as just another French fashion or historical curiosity...

              is that I think it has something very important to offer us for the new century.

              I 'm afraid we're losing the real virtues of living life passionately,

              the sense of taking responsibility for who you are,

              the ability to make something of yourself and feeling good about life.

              Existentialism is often discussed as if it's a philosophy of despair.

              But I think the truth is just the opposite.

              Sartre once interviewed said he never really felt a day of despair in his life.

              But one thing that comes out from reading these guys...

              is not a sense of anguish about life so much as...

              a real kind of exuberance of feeling on top of it.

              It's like your life is yours to create.

              I've read the post modernists with some interest, even admiration.

              But when I read them, I always have this awful nagging feeling...

              that something absolutely essential is getting left out.

              The more that you talk about a person as a social construction...

              or as a confluence of forces...

              or as fragmented or marginalized,

              what you do is you open up a whole new world of excuses.

              And when Sartre talks about responsibility,

              he's not talking about something abstract.

              He's not talking about the kind of self or soul that theologians would argue about.

              It's something very concrete. It's you and me talking.

              Making decisions. Doing things and taking the consequences.

              It might be true that there are six billion people in the world and counting.

              Nevertheless, what you do makes a difference.

              It makes a difference, first of all, in material terms.

              Makes a difference to other people and it sets an example.

              In short, I think the message here is...

              that we should never simply write ourselves off...

              and see ourselves as the victim of various forces.

              It's always our decision who we are.

              Creation seems to come out of imperfection.

              I t seems to come out of a striving and a frustration.

              And this is where I think language came from.

              I mean, it came from our desire to transcend our isolation...

              and have some sort of connection with one another.

              And it had to be easy when it was just simple survival.

              Like, you know, "water." We came up with a sound for that.

              Or, "Saber-toothed tiger right behind you." We came up with a sound for that.

              But when it gets really interesting, I think,

              is when we use that same system of symbols to communicate...

              all the abstract and intangible things that we're experiencing.

              What is, like, frustration? Or what is anger or love?

              When I say "love,"

              the sound comes out of my mouth...

              and it hits the other person's ear,

              travels through this Byzantine conduit in their brain,

              you know, through their memories of love or lack of love,

              and they register what I'm saying and say yes, they understand.

              But how do I know they understand? Because words are inert.

              They're just symbols. They're dead, you know?

              And so much of our experience is intangible.

              So much of what we perceive cannot be expressed. It's unspeakable.

              And yet, you know, when we communicate with one another,

              and we--

              we feel that we have connected,

              and we think that we're understood,

              I think we have a feeling of almost spiritual communion.

              And that feeling might be transient, but I think it's what we live for.

              If wee looking at the highlights of human development,

              you have to look at the evolution of the organism...

              and then at the development of its interaction with the environment.

              Evolution of the organism will begin with the evolution of life...

              perceived through the hominid...

              coming to the evolution of mankind.

              Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon man.

              Now, interestingly, what youe looking at here are three strings:

              biological, anthropological--

              development of the cities, cultures--

              and cultural, which is human expression.

              Now, what youe seen here is the evolution of populations,

              not so much the evolution of individuals.

              And in addition, if you look at the time scales that's involved here--

              two billion years for life,

              six million years for the hominid,

                      years for mankind as we know it--

              you're beginning to see the telescoping nature of the evolutionary paradigm.

              And then when you get to agricultural,

              when you get to scientific revolution and industrial revolution,

              you're looking at years, years, years.

              You're seeing a further telescoping of this evolutionary time.

              What that means is that as we go through the new evolution,

              it's gonna telescope to the point we should be able to see it manifest itself...

              within our lifetime, within this generation.

              The new evolution stems from information,

              and it stems from two types of information: digital and analog.

              The digital is artificial intelligence.

              The analog results from molecular biology, the cloning of the organism.

              And you knit the two together with neurobiology.

              Before on the old evolutionary paradigm,

              one would die and the other would grow and dominate.

              But under the new paradigm, they would exist...

              as a mutually supportive, noncompetitive grouping.

              Okay, independent from the external.

              And what is interesting here is that evolution now becomes an individually centered process,

              emanating from the needs and the desires of the individual,

              and not an external process, a passive process...

              where the individual is just at the whim of the collective.

              So, you produce a neo-human with a new individuality and a new consciousness.

              But that's only the beginning of the evolutionary cycle...

              because as the next cycle proceeds,

              the input is now this new intelligence.

              As intelligence piles on intelligence,

              as ability piles on ability, the speed changes.

              Until what? Until you reach a crescendo in a way...

              could be imagined as an enormous instantaneous fulfillment of human,

              human and neo-human potential.

              It could be something totally different.

              It could be the amplification of the individual,

              the multiplication of individual existences.

              Parallel existences now with the individual no longer restricted by time and space.

              And the manifestations of this neo-human-type evolution,

              manifestations could be dramatically counter-intuitive.

              That's the interesting part. The old evolution is cold.

              It's sterile. It's efficient, okay?

              And its manifestations are those social adaptations.

              You're talking about parasitism, dominance, morality, okay?

              Uh, war, predation, these would be subject to de-emphasis.

              These would be subject to de-evolution.

              The new evolutionary paradigm will give us the human traits of truth, of loyalty,

              of justice, of freedom.

              These will be the manifestations of the new evolution.

              That is what we would hope to see from this. That would be nice.

              A self-destructive man feels completely alienated, utterly alone.

              He's an outsider to the human community.

              He thinks to himself, "I must be insane."

              What he fails to realize is that society has, just as he does,

              a vested interest in considerable losses and catastrophes.

              These wars, famines, floods and quakes meet well-defined needs.

              Man wants chaos.

              In fact, he's gotta have it.

              Depression, strife, riots, murder, all this dread.

              We're irresistibly drawn to that almost orgiastic state...

              created out of death and destruction.

              It's in all of us. We revel in it.

              Sure, the media tries to put a sad face on these things,

              painting them up as great human tragedies.

              But we all know the function of the media has never been...

              to eliminate the evils of the world, no.

              Their job is to persuade us to accept those evils and get used to living with them.

              The powers that be want us to be passive observers.

              Hey, you got a match?

              And they haven't given us any other options...

              outside the occasional, purely symbolic,

              participatory act of voting.

              You want the puppet on the right or the puppet on the left?

              I feel that the time has come to project my own...

              inadequacies and dissatisfactions...

              into the sociopolitical and scientific schemes,

              Let my own lack of a voice be heard.

              I keep thinking about something you said.

              - Something I said? - Yeah.

              About how you often feel like you're observing your life...

              from the perspective of an old woman about to die.

              - You remember that? - Yeah. I still feel that way sometimes.

              Like I'm looking back on my life.

              Like my waking life is her memories.

              Exactly.

              I heard that Tim Leary said as he was dying...

              that he was looking forward to the moment...

              when his body was dead, but his brain was still alive.

              They say that there's still to minutes of brain activity after everything is shut down.

              And a second of dream consciousness, right,

              well, that's infinitely longer than a waking second.

              - You know what I'm saying? - Oh, yeah, definitely.

              For example, I wake up and it's :

              and then I go back to sleep and I have those long, intricate,

              beautiful dreams that seem to last for hours,

              and then I wake up and it's... : .

              Exactly. So then to minutes of brain activity,

              I mean, that could be your whole life.

              I mean, you are that woman looking back over everything.

              Okay, so what if I am? Then what would you be in all that?

              Whatever I am right now.

              I mean, yeah, maybe I only exist in your mind.

              I'm still just as real as anything else.

              Yeah.

              - I've been thinking also about something you said. - What's that?

              Just about reincarnation and where all the new souls come from over time.

              Everybody always say that they've been the reincarnation...

              of Cleopatra or Alexander the Great.

              I always want to tell them they were probably some dumb fuck like everybody else.

              I mean, it's impossible. Think about it.

              The world population has doubled in the past years, right?

              - So if you really believe in that ego thing of one eternal soul, - Mm-hmm.

              then you only have a % chance of your soul being over .

              And for it to be over years old, then it's only one out of six.

              So what are you saying then? Reincarnation doesn't exist...

              or that we're all young souls like where half of us are first-round humans?

              No, no. What I'm trying to say is that somehow I believe...

              reincarnation is just a--

              a poetic expression of what collective memory really is.

              There was this article by this biochemist that I read not long ago,

              and he was talking about how when a member of a species is born,

              it has a billion years of memory to draw on.

              And this is where we inherit our instincts.

              I like that. It's like there's, um,

              this whole telepathic thing going on that wee all a part of,

              whether wee conscious of it or not.

              That would explain why there's all these, you know,

              seemingly spontaneous, worldwide, innovative leaps in science, in the arts.

              You know, like the same results poppin' up everywhere independent of each other.

              Some guy on a computer, he figures something out,

              and then almost simultaneously, a bunch of other people all over the world...

              - figure out the same thing. - Mm-hmm.

              They did this study. They isolated a group of people over time,

              and they monitored their abilities at crossword puzzles...

              in relation to the general population.

              And then they secretly gave them a day-old crossword,

              one that had already been answered by thousands of other people.

              Their scores went up dramatically, like percent.

              So it's like once the answers are out there,

              you know, people can pick up on 'em.

              It's like we're all telepathically sharing our experiences.

              I'll get you motherfuckers if it's the last thing I do.

              Oh, you're gonna pay for what you did to me.

              For every second I spend in this hellhole,

              I'll see you spend a year in living hell!

              Oh, you fucks are gonna beg me to let you die.

              No, no, not yet.

              I want you cocksuckers to suffer.

              Oh, I'll fix your fuckin' asses, all right.

              Maybe a long needle in your eardrum.

              A hot cigar in your eye.

              Nothin' fancy.

              Some molten lead up the ass.

              Ooh!

              Or better still,

              some of that old Apache shit.

              Cut your eyelids off. Yeah.

              I'll just listen to you fucks screamin'.

              Oh, what sweet music that'll be.

              Yeah. We'll do it in the hospital.

              With doctors and nurses so you pricks don't die on me too quick.

              You know the best part?

              The best part is you dick-smokin' faggots will have your eyelids cut off,

              so youl have to watch me do it to you, yeah.

              You'll see me bring that cigar closer and closer...

              to your wide-open eyeball...

              till you're almost out of your mind.

              But not quite...

              'cause I want it to last a long, long time.

              I want you to know that it's me,

              that I'm the one that's doin' it to you.

              Me!

              And that sissy psychiatrist?

              What unmitigated ignorance!

              That old drunken fart of a judge!

              What a pompous ass!

              Judge not lestye be judged!

              All of you pukes are gonna die the day I get out of this shithole!

              I guarantee youl regret the day you met me!

              In a way, in our contemporary world view,

              It's easy to think that science has come to take the place of God.

              But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever.

              Take the problem of free will.

              This problem's been around for a long time,

              since before Aristotle in B.C.

              St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas,

              these guys all worried about how we can be free...

              if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do.

              Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws,

              and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world.

              Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy,

              they enable incredible technological achievements.

              But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too.

              We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules.

              We're mostly water,

              and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to basic physical laws.

              So it starts to look like whether it's God setting things up in advance...

              and knowing everything you're gonna do...

              or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything.

              There's not a lot of room left for freedom.

              So now you might be tempted to just ignore the question,

              ignore the mystery of free will.

              Say, "Oh, well, it's just an historical anecdote. It's sophomoric.

              It's a question with no answer. Just forget about it."

              But the question keeps staring you right in the face.

              You think about individuality, for example, who you are.

              Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make.

              Or take responsibility. You can only be held responsible,

              you can only be found guilty or admired or respected...

              for things you did of your own free will.

              The question keeps coming back, and we don't really have a solution to it.

              It starts to look like all your decisions are really just a charade.

              Think about how it happens. There's some electrical activity in your brain.

              Your neurons fire. They send a signal down into your nervous system.

              It passes along down into your muscle fibers.

              They twitch. You might, say, reach out your arm.

              Looks like it's a free action on your part,

              but every one of those-- every part of that process...

              is actually governed by physical law:

              chemical laws, electrical laws and so on.

              So now it just looks like the Big Bang set up the initial conditions,

              and the whole rest of our history,

              the whole rest of human history and even before,

              is really just sort of the playing out of subatomic particles...

              according to these basic fundamental physical laws.

              We think wee special. We think we have some kind of special dignity,

              but that now comes under threat.

              I mean, that's really challenged by this picture.

              So you might be saying, "Well, wait a minute. What about quantum mechanics?

              "I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that.

              "It's really a probabilistic theory.

              There's room. It's loose. It's not deterministic."

              And that's gonna enable us to understand free will.

              But if you look at the details, it's not really gonna help...

              because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles,

              and their behavior is apparently a bit random.

              They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that it's unpredictable...

              and we can't understand it based on anything that came before.

              It just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework.

              But is that gonna help with freedom?

              Should our freedom just be a matter of probabilities,

              just some random swerving in a chaotic system?

              That just seems like it's worse. I'd rather be a gear...

              in a big deterministic, physical machine...

              than just some random swerving.

              So we can't just ignore the problem.

              We have to find room in our contemporary world view for persons,

              with all that that it entails; not just bodies, but persons.

              And that means trying to solve the problem of freedom,

              finding room for choice and responsibility...

              and trying to understand individuality.

              You can't fight city hall, death and taxes.

              Don't talk about politics or religion.

              This is all the equivalent of enemy propaganda rolling across the picket line.

              " Lay down, G.I. Lay down, G.I."

              We saw it all through the th Century.

              And now in the st Century, it's time to stand up and realize...

              that we should not allow ourselves to be crammed into this rat maze.

              We should not submit to dehumanization.

              I don't know about you, but I'm concerned with what's happening in this world.

              I'm concerned with the structure.

              I'm concerned with the systems of control,

              those that control my life and those that seek to control it even more!

              I want freedom! That's what I want!

              And that's what you should want!

              It's up to each and every one of us to turn loose and just shovel the greed,

              the hatred, the envy and, yes, the insecurities...

              because that is the central mode of control-- make us feel pathetic, small...

              so we'll willingly give up our sovereignty, our liberty, our destiny.

              We have got to realize that we're being conditioned on a mass scale.

              Start challenging this corporate slave state!

              The st Century is gonna be a new century,

              not the century of slavery, not the century of lies and issues of no significance...

              and classism and statism and all the rest of the modes of control!

              It's gonna be the age of humankind...

              standing up for something pure and something right!

              What a bunch of garbage-- liberal Democrat, conservative Republican.

              It's all there to control you. Two sides of the same coin.

              Two management teams bidding for control!

              The C.E.O. job of Slavery, Incorporated!

              The truth is out there in front of you, but they lay out this buffet of lies!

              I'm sick of it, and I'm not gonna take a bite out of it! Do you got me?

              Resistance is not futile. We're gonna win this thing.

              Humankind is too good! We're not a bunch of underachievers!

              We're gonna stand up and we're gonna be human beings!

              We're gonna get fired up about the real things, the things that matter:

              creativity and the dynamic human spirit that refuses to submit!

              Well, that's it! That's all I got to say! It's in your court.

              The quest is to be liberated from the negative,

              which is really our own will to nothingness.

              And once having said yes to the instant,

              the affirmation is contagious.

              It bursts into a chain of affirmations that knows no limit.

              To say yes to one instant...

              is to say yes to all of existence.

              The main character is what you might call "the mind."

              It's mastery, it's capacity to represent.

              Throughout history, attempts have been made...

              to contain those experiences which happen at the edge of the limit...

              where the mind is vulnerable.

              But I think we are in a very significant moment in history.

              Those moments, those what you might call liminal,

              Limit, frontier, edge zone experiences...

              are actually now becoming the norm.

              These multiplicities and distinctions and differences...

              that have given great difficulty to the old mind...

              are actually through entering into their very essence,

              tasting and feeling their uniqueness.

              One might make a breakthrough to that common something...

              that holds them together.

              And so the main character is, to this new mind,

              greater, greater mind.

              A mind that yet is to be.

              And when we are obviously entered into that mode,

              you can see a radical subjectivity,

              radical attunement to individuality, uniqueness to that which the mind is,

              opens itself to a vast objectivity.

              So the story is the story of the cosmos now.

              The moment is not just a passing, empty nothing yet.

              And this is in the way in which these secret passages happen.

              Yes, it's empty with such fullness...

              that the great moment, the great life of the universe...

              is pulsating in it.

              And each one, each object, each place, each act...

              Leaves a mark.

              And that story is singular.

              But, in fact, it's story after story.

              Time just dissolves into quick-moving particles that are swirling away.

              Either I'm moving fast or time is. Never both simultaneously.

              It's such a strange paradox. I mean, while, technically,

              I 'm closer to the end of my life than I've ever been,

              I actually feel more than ever that I have all the time in the world.

              When I was younger, there was a desperation, a desire for certainty,

       &nb

电影放到三分之二，我睡着了，以致不得不深夜把它从头至尾再看一遍。

这是值得的。这里头全是人生里讲不完的废话，而且它真的就敢用这样一种貌似无聊的宣教的方式讲了出来。也许为了老少咸宜，或者就干脆就是出于编织一个诡计的需要，它赋予自己以最绚烂的形式。但它仍然是一个诡计，对某些人而言，甚至是梦魇。

故事的结构，如同博尔赫斯著名的短篇《环形废墟》。博尔赫斯写道，一位逃亡的魔法师来到了一座庙宇的环行废墟中，他生存的意义就是做梦，为了在梦中塑造一个到达真实世界的“人”，一个将经历与他一样宿命的的幻影。唯一知道这塑造出来的人其实是幻影的，是世界上的火。某天，环行废墟再次遭到火焚。当魔法师走向大火时，火焰非但没有吞噬他的皮肉，反而抚慰他，于是，“他宽慰地，惭愧地，害怕地知道他也是一个幻影，另一个人梦中的幻影。”

《半梦半醒的人生》这部电影，说的则是一个稀里糊涂的年轻男子，在没完没了、如套盒般一个包容一个的梦中，与这样那样的人展开关于人生的哲学、生物学、政治学、符号学之类的探讨，间或参杂某囚徒在狱中的凶狠诅咒、某自杀者在街头的自焚、几男子在加油站中所遇怪事，以及一些童年印象的逝影倏忽，如此整整100分钟。这男子发觉自己无论如何都走不出这个梦魇。他迫切地想要醒来，可是，每次他都是那个无法控制电灯的开关的人——梦中遭遇的一个人物曾告诉他，要知道自己是不是在梦境中，只要看看是不是能够调整房间里的光源就可以了。我们这位可怜的梦境穿梭者，根本找不到梦的源头——也就是所谓现实中的那个他，于是只好倾听各色人等在他的梦里面，无穷尽和他谈论人生如梦的大道理。

确实是足够黑色幽默。这电影耍的是一个机智的阴谋。如果你还记得《爱在黎明破晓时》和《爱在日落余晖时》，你就会明白这是同一个导演（RICHARD LINKLATER）的惯用路数。在那被人戏称为“侃大山电影之最”的两部曲中，RICHARD LINKLATER让一对俊男美女在维也纳和巴黎的街道和河岸走来走去，相互诉说彼此对于人性、政治、文学、自我的感悟，用一种略带惆怅和忧伤的方式说尽了青春的梦想和中年的彷徨。现在，导演自己破了自己的纪录。他在一部以真人表演为水彩创作素材的动画片里到达了侃大山电影的最高境界，那就是：里头所有的人物都在没完没了地演说，连一个出租汽车司机都可以面对镜头大谈特谈自由的意义。

显然，100分钟的时间里，除了被前所未有的视觉效果震撼，你还必须经历一场脑力激荡。整个过程中，不要试图抓住每个善辩的人物的话语意义，因为你终究会发现，你根本就不可能对其中涉及的话题进行归纳和总结。他们似乎说了许多，说得足够深度足够真诚，然而他们又什么都没有说——梦境穿梭者在每一场深奥的言说中离开，发觉自己还是陷在另一场梦中；用脑过度的观众最后只能记住那个在梦里欲罢不能的倒霉蛋。

《半梦半醒的人生》以轻微的悲观主义色彩，展现了关于人之解释、人生之解释的无穷尽性。太多的意义被赋予到一场梦境的追溯中，最后却用以证明梦境的虚幻。看这样的电影是一个翻开心胸享受思维快乐的过程，但愿它不会为你带来痛苦。

PS.《爱在日落余晖时》的悬案在《半梦半醒的人生》中终于得到了解答。Jesse和Céline究竟上了床没有？上了，而且在床上还继续着他们机智的讨论。对于《爱在日落余晖时》的影迷来说，这是一个重大的消息，呵呵。

在豆瓣上溜达一圈，觉得应该有人好好说的说的本片，无奈只能由我这个懒人暂且充当一下这个角色了，咳咳。【欢迎潜下去的比我还懒的人来批评指导扔板砖】

这部电影一下抓住了我，我承认，是有很多主观色彩在里面的，对梦的研究，量子物理，自由论，关于生活，存在，还有人与人的交流方式，都是我非常感兴趣也是一直在关注的问题。所以看到这部电影真的非常想跪在地上，捧着盘，仰头45度，瀑布泪，还要在脑袋顶上打个光的。

所以与其说这是一部电影，更像是一种交流，像涉及语言起源话题的那个女的说的那样，人类有各种各样的交流模式，而这部电影就是其中之一，是导演在世纪交界之处希望传到一个强有力的信号，而如果你能接受到信号的话，就不会觉得这是满头雾水的对白了，而是，你也是对话之中积极的参与者。

首先，关于梦。

一段时间，我总是再做同一个梦，梦见自己在飞，我可以控制气流，轻轻向下踩一下，就会上升，可以控制高度，控制速度，控制降落，一切，就像真的在飞一样。 一直对佛洛依德梦的解释很感兴趣，得知这叫醒梦，也就是电影里多次提到的lucid dream，这是梦一种比较高级的状态，在这种梦的状态之中，梦者是对自己的梦有掌控能力的，可以思考，可以判断，可以行动，并不一定是飞翔，飞翔是一种少有的状态，可以仅仅就像是电影里那样就是进入一个又一个日常生活的情节之中，但是对自己的梦有部分掌控能力，并且这种能力可以主观上得以训练，控制梦的能力也就更强，我一直在对自己做这些有趣实验，也确实有不少收获。

而关于梦与现实，一直以来都是一个很有意思的话题。我们是在梦中还是在现实中，怎样才能确定我们不是从一个梦中醒来，却进入了另一个梦中，怎样才能区分梦境与现实？这个话题又可以被我非常主观的解释为——怎样才能有真正的存在感？ 我看过两个对这个话题最有意思的探讨；一个是米兰昆德拉，他既提出了问题，也解决了问题，提问和答案还都是一样的，那就是——生活，永远在别处。另外一个就是这部电影啦，很巧妙的是，导演的提问和回答也都在题目里了，那就是Waking Life.

但其实这部电影的剧情不仅仅是一个个梦那么简单，若是真的要很客观的从电影内部的心理学角度来分析的话，我偏向于整部电影都是男主角死亡之前的思想停留，跟stay的剧情框架是一致的。关于人死前的的意识存在的问题，片中也有简短介绍，简单说来就是当人的机体已经死亡之后，大脑还会有5分钟左右的生存时间，而这短短的几分钟，在思维的过程中可以是几个月，甚至几年的时间线，而大脑这段时间的运作其实于梦非常类似，都是潜意识的记忆空间的思维活动，能够反映出最基本的心理和渴望。

本片也正是如此，其中几处暗示有，1.电影刚开始男主角搭车后被撞，2.Jesse 和Céline在床上讨论人死前的意识停留，以及3.最后男主角发现自己无法从一个有一个梦中醒来，推断自己可能已经死了。这些都应合理的推理为，(加上我的部分主观推测），男主角车祸身亡，但是由于他壮年夭折，对生活抱有诸多疑问亟待解决，（好吧，这两句是搞笑用的）所以潜意识里渴望能够得到一个答案，于是在幻觉世界里产生了大量此类话题的对白，其中夹杂着一些生前的记忆碎片，和临死一瞬间的回忆。

在对具体内容展开之前，我想先提醒大家，有没有注意到不知道在电影哪分钟里男主角的一句台词，（好吧，我是非常不负责任的影评者，大概是跟那个地下道里遇见的女人的对话里），他说，他进入了很多对话之中，这些对话似乎都是在讨论一个主题。。。

当当当当~一个华丽的切入点。

所有这些不同的话题，你说他涉及了物理学也好，生物进化学也好，哲学，心理学，甚至法学，政治，民主，自由，等等似乎触类旁通，但其实仅仅是一个话题，导演只想跟我们说明一件事情，但这件事情之所以导演没有那么直白的用语言的形式明确表达出来，而仅仅是暗示，是因为，对于不同观影主题来说，会有不同的理解与看法，而仅仅明确提出这个主题，就会把这个主题的范围大大狭隘化了。（貌似我现在就在大大狭隘这个主体，呃。。。）

如果让我总结的话，我会说，整个话题都是关于Life的，（我无法直接翻译这个词，因为译成，生命，生活，生存都不够妥当）也就是电影名字的后半部分。（关于前半部分，我会稍后说明）

如果要剖析每一段对话的话，这个影评就会有一个很难看的长度了，（这是我非常不希望发生的）因为导演在这么一部短短的电影中想表达的东西太多了，所以我就抓我认为的重点来说了。

整个电影最核心的一个人物，是在大桥上高呼：Life is not a dream! be aware, and be aware,and be aware! 的那位仁兄，并且据推断这个人物的形象很有可能就是导演本身。 其中关于认知和life他说，他并不完全赞同某某的观点（原谅我忘记那哥们叫什么了，并且很无知的不知道他是谁），而说，Life understood is life lived.(这也就正是本片的一个中心思想吧，啊，回到小学语文课的感觉真好啊）。

无论拥有怎样的人生，混混沌沌都是可耻的，就算是在清醒的”现实“状态之中，毫无知觉的渡日，如在半睡半醒之中，（所谓waking，电影名字的前半部分） 那又与真正睡梦相差几何呢？但是这世界上有多少人是在这种所谓的半梦半醒的状态之中的呢？

如果真的要去计数的话，得到的只可能是一个残酷的数字。地铁上多少面无表情的朝九晚五上班族，多少自觉欣慰穿着“白领”奔波的灵魂，早已忘了自己年轻时的初衷与梦想，多少大学校园里荒废时光的“新世纪接班人”。还有多少高考考场里渴望着自己理想的院校的孩子。等等，你以为这就是有目的，有意识的行为么？

哦，不， 我们早就在社会中被摆弄了。整体的社会价值观就是，一个孩子，应该接受教育，应该在学校取得好的成绩，应该上一个一说名字大家都能知道的大学，应该在大学毕业之后找到一份收入可观的工作，等等等等。

虽然不可否认这可以是一种正确的人生轨迹，但是我们的人生，还是我们清醒的状态下（非梦的状态下）的选择么？这是我们的自由意志么？我们有选择的权利和自由么？还是这是我们从小就被社会灌输的一种所谓正确的生活观？或者说是在潜在的社会观念下的束缚下的非自由状态？

这就应了电影里另一位仁兄，谈及自由问题的时候问道：有没有真正的自由可言？ 连我们的思考都是在尊崇所有人一致的思考程序，无非不是大脑中几个电流蹦出的火花，那我们又怎样才能摆脱这些本身就赋予在我们身上的枷锁，获得真正的自由呢？

当然这种绝对的消极主义是不可取的，谁都知道大家微观的思维过程是一致的，但是主观意识却占有更主要的比重。毕竟苹果砸在有的人的脑袋上，能够发现万有引力，砸在我的脑袋上就肯定不行。毕竟有的人脑袋里就能突然显现出E=mc^2，在有的人脑袋里就只能是狭隘的金钱占有欲，嫉妒，贪婪与懒惰。

但是过分乐观也是不可取的，这种潜在的社会枷锁在一定程度上虽然束缚了自由意志，但却不能否认的保障了一定的社会秩序。换句话说，在现在的这个时代，这种有点扭曲有点病态的社会状态还是可以被接受的，借用马克思的话就是：还迎合现在所谓的生产力。只是有一部分人会在这样的生活状态中感到极端的孤独，有的人会觉得矛盾，有的人会与整个社会格格不入，但是随着时间消逝，这一部分人中又有一部分人学会了接受和迎合，慢慢走近了社会的大圈子里，真正的问题仅存在于少数自以为文艺的青年中。

这部分人活在未来的时代当中，就像梵高毕加索不能被自己的年代赏识，就像艾米丽狄耿森的诗在自己的时代活不下去，就像一直在黑暗中踽踽独行的鲁迅，把时间狠狠往前推，就像公元前就在渴望理想国的柏拉图，像渴望完美仁君的孔孟，还有完全脱世的老庄。

在自己的年代中，都是那样的格格不入。

是时代的问题，不久的将来或是很久之后的将来，当这种问题变成社会普遍问题的时候，就意味着，革命又将到来。你可以说我像尼采一样唯心，一样疯狂，但是这种你认为可取也可以认为不可取的意识本身的价值是不可估量的。

最后再回到电影当中，再回到梦的话题上来。

我也想站在桥上高喊：Life is not a dream, be aware, be aware, and be aware! 也许鲁迅也好，导演也好，我也好，都仅仅是想站起来，高声吼一下，就算能够唤醒一个“半睡半醒”中的人也好啊。

其实无论是昆德拉也好，本片导演也好，答案都是一样的—— 真正重要的不是区分到底是在睡梦中还是清醒着，重要的是能够自由思考，确定自己认为有价值有意义的事情，为之追求，不被周围意志所动摇，并且能够时刻清晰的意识到自己的行为还在自己原始的轨道上。这样，就算现在所经历的状态仅仅是一个梦，也不枉此行了。

Life understood is life lived! 我再加上一句，让它逻辑上更完整，Dream understood is dream dreamed!

PS 电影还有一个很厉害的地方就是，对白那么多！！！开头30分钟，男主角基本上没说过话。。。。。

为什么说是“内时间意识”呢？其实这个词放在这里是很不妥当的，深究起来，我就变成现象学的罪人和玩弄者了。
但是在《waking life》中确实不存在——即使存在，也被巧妙地掩盖住了——正常的时间。主角一直在徘徊、画面也一直在徘徊，观众被诱进语言织体的陷阱：只有语言，庞大的且看似杂乱无章的大段独白才是观众有可能把握的——纵然杂乱，却未脱离语法，而在情节和画面中，我们甚至可以说，整部影片都是支离破碎的臆想。这是导演的恶意抑或目的？
或许导演同时希望观众放弃情节，把全部精力投入庄之蝶的禅机。他根本没这个必要，愿意花时间两遍三遍看片子的人根本不会在意什么狗屁情节，这种人都是偏执狂，否则他们宁愿找一张tango唱片听一下算了（顺便说一句，背景音乐恰如其分地选择了能够凸现疲惫、紧张、忧虑和努力把握一丝理性的情绪的tango，太棒了）。