罪与错

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.

这是一部典型的伍迪式喜剧。最近看了很多伍迪的电影，可以算得上是第二个高峰了，而这一部是所有这些里面最好的一部。

首先来说说（我把电影分为三个部分，一个为马丁兰道的故事，一个为伍迪的故事，一个为派对上的故事）第一个故事：马丁兰道饰演的医生是一个博学、有钱的上层社会的人。和妻子结婚25年，早没了激情，于是两年前搞起来外遇。马丁承诺会离开妻子，但最后又反悔，甚至都不知道自己有没有做出过承诺，而真爱难寻，眼看他要离开自己，女方怎么也不愿放手，并且以马丁挪用公款的事来威胁他。这使得马丁进退两难。一是不想离开自己舒适且温馨的生活，二是面对抉择的懦弱。马丁分别找到好友本和弟弟杰克，前者说世界上是有一个道德体系的、有温度的，而马丁的态度正好相反，他认为世界是无意义的、冷酷的。这里为后面的情节做了一个伏笔。马丁以前帮过杰克很多次，虽说两者是亲兄弟，但命运却完全不同，马丁是成功的人、上层社会的人，而杰克则是个“令父亲失望的人”。杰克懂得马丁的暗示：除掉这个女人。但马丁心里却怎么也下不了决定。马丁的家庭是一个宗教家庭，但其实也并非全部家庭成员，也许是受家里的一些唯物主义者的影响，马丁从来都不信上帝，但却对童年拉比的一句话深深牢记：“上帝的眼睛在注视着你”。女友的逼迫越来越紧，她威胁他带她私奔，并不断往他家里打电话。最终，马丁崩溃了。杰克找人，马丁付钱，女人被干掉，事情十分顺畅。但从听到结局的第一秒，他便开始后悔了。这也成了他无法跨越的心坎。

第二部分：伍迪的故事。伍迪是一个失败的纪录片导演。和妻子关系不合，妹妹的老公早亡，于是他和侄女很亲密，经常带她去看电影，与她分享有趣的事情。伍迪的妻子有一个弟弟，叫莱斯特，与伍迪相反，是一个成功的电视人，拿过好几个艾美。但伍迪对此不屑一顾，他根本看不起莱斯特，认为他的作品不值一文。并且时时与他针锋相对。看着伍迪好几年没工作，妻子便让莱斯特安排一下，莱斯特想拍一部展现个人魅力风纪录片，便让伍迪接手。伍迪一开始是反对的，但在钱的面子上，他妥协了。但给他拍了一坨粪。在片场，伍迪认识了联合制片米亚法罗，是为数不多的几个欣赏伍迪才华的人。与此同时伍迪正在拍摄一部有教育意义的纪录片，由李维教授口述，法罗看完之后认为很有意思，并鼓励伍迪继续下去。伍迪渐渐地对她产生了好感。但谁料到莱斯特也对法罗有意思，伍迪十分着急，不想让莱斯特把法罗抢到手，便处处为法罗担心。法罗对此十分模糊。在被莱斯特解雇后，李维也跳楼死了，可以说，伍迪的人生是一团糟。法罗过来关心他，而他吻了法罗，就像我上面说的，法罗很模糊，不知道怎么办。此时，她就要启程去伦敦，要花三四个月（怎么感觉这便是曼哈顿的后续呢），伍迪同意等她。

第三个故事：伍迪和妻子和解了，感情也几乎耗尽。为了配合妻子，他来了一个派对。是本女儿的婚礼。（本好像是伍迪妻子的弟弟还是什么）马丁也来了。伍迪在派对上遇到了法罗，但此时他早已拥入莱斯特的怀抱。他们在伦敦偶遇（鬼信），他俘获了她的芳心。此时，伍迪为影史上留下了一个无比悲伤的特写，看得我鸡皮疙瘩掉一地。伍迪抑郁了，一个人坐在房间里喝闷酒。从另一个伍迪妻子与莱斯特的镜头中可以得知，伍迪的妻子已经有别的男人了。此时马丁也进了房间，与伍迪开始交谈起来。从他们的对话中，我们可以知道两人的结局。马丁后来一直被谋杀所困扰，甚至有自首的冲动，但他发现这毫无意义，因为只有他一个人知道他是罪犯，与其自责，不如继续从前的生活。马丁把这个故事以第三人称的方式告诉了伍迪，因为伍迪与他刚好谈到了谋杀。最后一组镜头里，马丁笑着迎接妻子，而伍迪坐在阴影中思考。最后影片用了李维的一段话来结束，是关于人生与价值的，这里就不灌鸡汤了。

我可以把道德体系比作一扇半开的门。每一个都有两种选择：门内、门外，却完全没有一半一半这种选项。如影片所说，你怎样选择决定了你是一个什么样的人。站在门内，意味着你站在世界一边，而后者意味着与世界为敌。

影片中罪与错的关系，不是非此即彼的。我可以大胆地说影片里没有人有错，他们只是做了自己最应该做的事情。但区别是，马丁是有罪的，伍迪和其他人则没有。马丁是罪人，却没有得到惩罚，因为没人知晓，他自然把自己排除在道德体系之外。而伍迪没有罪，他追求爱，追求成功，却无形中承担了所有的痛苦，因为他把自己置身于道德体系之中。这便有力地证明了上帝并不存在。而我们所谓的公正，其实也是相对的，只是对于在门内的人们的公正。我一直都不愿服从于任何一种思想，除非是自己真正想要，我想成为公正的受益者，也想成为一个自由的人。但这是矛盾的，两者之间永远无法妥协。那怎么办呢？也许忘记一切束缚，做自己想要做的人，才是自己最应该关心的事。我们大部分人都是被关在门内的，甚至连门的存在都不知道。（感谢这些好公民创造了一个美好的社会）我也许无法找到门，但我能摸索到一扇窗，我坚信。即使被关在门内，也要时不时望向窗外。