特丽丝塔娜

父母双亡的Tristana由叔叔收养。这个已经没落却死爱面子的旧贵族叔叔把Tristana既当女儿又当情人，直到后者与一个年轻画家私奔走人。但几年后，身患重病的Tristana又回到叔叔身边……

布努埃尔对没落的可悲的旧贵族男主似乎并非完全没有同情，但他的描述依然无比尖刻，并给了男主一个最终惨死的命运。Catherine Deneuve演的年轻女儿/女友在生病后发生的改变也无疑是被男主长期的养育/控制所腐蚀的结果。（当然，这部片是61年Viridiana被弗朗哥政权查禁之后布努埃尔重新在西班牙本土拍摄的第一部电影，男主口口声声要帮助穷人、坚决不要神父来家里的场景说不定也只是为了让审查满意——“反派们都是这样的伪君子”——很难弄清楚。）这部片和Viridiana的延续性明确无疑：情节和人物上十分相似，对老变态男主都有集中刻画，恋足这个布努埃尔在昆虫学之外的一大癖好也清晰可见。布努埃尔式的故事基本上就是贵族在一个无望的死圈子里并不灿烂地一点点腐烂下去直到灭亡，这点一以贯之。布努埃尔同时又是复杂和暧昧的。他电影里的所有人物都善恶难辨，不是灵魂早已扭曲就是正在走向堕落，从贵族到哑巴，从老年到少女，从Nazarin里的神父到Viridiana里乞丐……本片里，似乎能感到导演对男主这个父权制缔造出的老变态的复杂情绪，关于爱的扭曲关于控制欲引发的堕落，导演在讲述的故事似乎具有某种私人色彩，而非简单的控诉或者挽歌。故事悲剧的结局也因此而更显得无可避免，更有说服力。

这部片里Tristana梦境中绕着阴暗的楼梯一圈圈爬上钟楼在钟楼顶上遇到恐怖画面的镜头让人想到希区柯克58年《迷魂记》的结尾，而钟楼顶的惊险遭遇这一灵感的最初来源据说是布努埃尔53年的《他》。可以说，在希区柯克和布努埃尔这两个据说互相非常欣赏的导演之间，前者在美国新中产们的焦虑中挖掘金矿，后者在对欧陆反动派的怀旧情绪鞭尸。

2020-10-05

1.特丽丝塔娜从纯洁的少女堕落成谋杀亲夫冷酷无情的贵妇。

2.钟内悬挂的洛比先生的死头颅，这是纠缠女主的噩梦，对女主来说是血腥、厌恶和恶心的。

3.洛比先生的鞋代表了女主对他的态度。女主脚的失去是逃跑的代价，她无法挣脱束缚，而且最终回归了厌恶的资产阶级家庭。洛比先生用丰富的物质挽留女主，实际上是要满足自己的欲望。

4.涉及资产阶级的伪善、罪恶、乱伦、欲望的自由与禁锢，年轻与衰老死亡，对天主教信仰的怀疑。

5、哑巴少年是身上有无法言说的，对女主的欲望。他与特丽丝塔娜敞开衣服的对视，他慌忙后退，然后切到圣女像的镜头太厉害了，但我说不清其中的寓意。是女主彻底的堕落？

#DVD 感觉影片想讲的太多，以阶级思想开场，后到男女权力，政治格局和宗教信仰，而且看似浅谈的宗教部分其实是蛮重要的一笔，虽然人性欲望一直作为主线支撑着整个故事，但是把这些宏大的元素杂糅到一起还是让整个故事显得有些散。

结构上，时间的流逝在影片中被很大程度的弱化，同时也弱化了观众对于人物转变的代入感，虽然让故事稍显突兀，但也让观众更容易抽离于故事，这与导演对于人物的设定有很大关系，感觉更像是观众的冷眼旁观，看着人性欲望逐渐膨胀。

影片以钟声搭配着整个镇子的远景开场，以钟声搭配女主与三个男人的闪回结束，完成度很高，结尾的超现实画面一次又一次出现，头化锤，钟如何响？室内运镜非常不错，对于人物情绪的传递还是非常到位的，还有几次对于镜子的利用。

两个设计非常喜欢：1. 噩梦后女主挠了挠自己的胸口。2.结尾处女主拄着拐杖“踱步”的那场戏，配合着剪辑台词的设计，也很巧妙的把她塑造成了一个焦急等待死神带走老者的人。

TRISTANA, Buñuel’s uncompromisingly acidulous and formally decorous moral allegory, has deceptively bare-bones plot, in the wake of her bereavement, our titular 19-year-old heroine (Deneuve) moves into the household of her new ward, Don Lope (Rey), an erstwhile suitor of her deceased mother, who is reputed to be impeccable in personality and moral standing, but hinted by his maid Saturna (Gaos, a diligent servant who is equally diligent in keeping her own counsel albeit being in the know throughout), he has a particular soft spot for woman.

Descending from gentry stratification, Don Lope is not rolling in money, whose atheistic, socialistic belief also falls foul of his own family members, a hardened bachelor, he is not sated to be only a father figure to a nymphet like Tristana, but also her husband, which a docile Tristana complies under his paternalistic persuasion, but instilled by Don Lope’s self-contradicted “talk the talk and walk the walk” ideologue (one must free to love, but as his nominal wife, Tristana cannot do anything to spoil his name), a susceptible Tristana, who has an idiosyncratic preference over even selfsame things (pillars in the church or two chickpeas), gets tired of this cradle-snatcher and gets her feet wet in the outside world, and soon, falls in love with a visiting painter Horacio (a four-square Nero), who will spirit Tristana away from the town of Toledo, there is nothing Don Lope can do to obviate it.

Several years later, the tidings that Tristana is back in Toledo with Horacio, jolts a salt-and-pepper but newly inheritance-received Don Lope out of placidity and he magnanimously grants her wish to stay with her “father” for her malady, a tumor grown in her leg, and before soon Horacio is driven out of the picture, everything seems to return to the status quo, with Tristana now an embittered amputee, and Don Lope eventually gets her acquiescence of matrimony (her wedding dressing is exactly the same color of her mourning in the beginning of the story), but their union is deficient in domestic bliss, even when Don Lope becomes more tolerant of Tristana’s emotional distantiation, as foreshadowed by Tristana’s horrific nightmare in the belfry (the only surrealistic masterstroke Buñuel flourishes in the film), the precognition will become true in a deadly winter night, when Tristana finally turns the tables on her scorned husband, after a sequence of rewinding montages, the film brings down its curtain.

Much more than a cautionary tale about a middle-aged prig’s inveterate nympholepsy, betraying by the title, the film puts its heroine in the dead center, Tristana’s metamorphosis is something so staggering that the whole innocence-eroding-and-acrimony-crystallizing process cuts like a sharp-edged knife to anyone who can claim enough faith in humanity, and we can see where the canker lies in the opposite sex.

Deneuve is at her most impressive when her brazens out Tristana’s ruthlessness after being physically punished for her right to love, the unflinching gaze she projects upon Saturno (Fernández), the mute son of Saturna, when she bares it all, is soul-shatteringly chilling and disdainful, it constitutes a transcendent moment when emancipated female body squashes the lascivious male gaze from the ground up. Rey, on the other hand, imparts a fully sympathetic persona despite Lope’s unsavory disposition, a typical product of a patriarchal society who abuses his entitlement, swallows his pride and dissipates his fortunes, Buñuel is ever so sharp-eyed to pinpoint our species' inherent frailties and show us the consequences in such explicit minutiae, TRISTANA is here to stay.

referential entries: Buñuel’s VIRIDIANA (1961, 8.2/10); EL (1953, 7.6/10); BELLE DU JOUR (1967, 7.9/10).