粉红色杀人夜

1984 Body Double - 粉紅色殺人夜 觀後感


片名：Body Double - 粉紅色殺人夜
美國上映：1984年10月26日
香港上映：1985年2月1日
導演：Brian De Palma 布萊恩•狄帕瑪 (1940)
編劇：Robert J. Avrech(1950), Brian De Palma
演員：Craig Wasson(1954 usa), Deborah Shelton(1948 usa), Melanie Griffith(1957 usa), Gregg Henry(1952 usa).

Double Body 粉紅色殺人夜。
看名字大概也猜想到是驚慄片。
這齣電影在 IMDB 得分是偏低的。
但我喜歡！
喜歡它有三個理由。

一.
電影的導演 布萊恩 (Brian De Palma) 製作這電影的目的，是要向 希治閣 (Alfred Hitchcock) 的 作品（迷魂記）與（後窗）致敬。
因為我也喜歡看希治閣的電影。

二.
我喜歡這個普通的驚慄故事，但是極度誘惑！
現在看三十年前的電影，大概能猜到當中的劇情，尤其那些偵探、犯罪、與驚慄。
可是這齣電影我猜想不到。

三.
片中一首主題曲 (Relax)。
是由80年代英國組合 Frankie Goes To Hollywood 主唱。
年輕時很不喜歡這首歌，感覺壞又嘈雜！應說是 “討厭”。
直至幾前天看了這齣電影，我竟然重覆又重覆地聽著這首 (Relax!)。
所以，生活是很妙的，討厭了三十年的東西，一瞬間就喜歡...

簡介一下電影劇情…

一開場。一個路人甲演員飾演一名殭屍。
(我以為他真是路人甲，原來是男主角。Craig Wasson)



殭屍演員下班後回復路人甲身份。
趕回家與同居女友相聚。
誰知女友跟別人鬼混，捉姦在床! 還有什麼可說呢?
立即離開…他頓時居無定所。

幸好遇上有心人，朋友借了一間屋給他住，當時來說是超級豪宅。
(不…現在看還是超級豪宅!)
他要做的只是每天替植物灑水。
（多便宜啊…!）



大屋以黑色為主，但非常現代，全屋落地玻璃眺望遠觀美景。
最突出還是那支專業的望遠鏡。

有心朋友說: 對面有個女人，每天晚上會出來跳艷舞!

路人甲試著看…不到幾分鐘，真的有個女人出來跳艷舞，動作非常誘惑！
看著她每一舉手一投足，視線都不能再轉移。
（我相信當年入戲院的觀眾，真有可能在這一刻，立即想找個異性來解決即時上的生理需要。）

路人甲被誘惑了。
每天也情不自禁地進行偷窺，每天也期待她的艷舞出場時間。
（其實我也很期待！）



他開始跟蹤她，還邂逅她。
一幕又一幕地推進去…
把劇情帶到一個成人的世界裡面…




其中一幕。(Relax) 這首歌出場了！
以前，這首歌嘈吵得令我根本無法想像一個好的畫面。
但在電影裡，音樂一起，一個服務員，既溫柔又施文，配著口形唱這首歌。
他向路人甲介紹那間成人世界商店的設施。
就是這樣，歌曲跟我以前的感覺，有强烈的對比…
我喜歡！


粉紅色殺人夜。
說明了殺人，當然是有人死吧！
片中有一男兩女為主要角色。（Craig Wasson, Deborah Shelton, Melanie Griffith)。以上三個，誰是受害者？
路人甲好端端一個臨時演員，為何他會捲入殺人事件？
有人有心策劃，還是命運的意外呢？




導演：Brian De Palma (1940)


導演：Alfred Hitchcock (1899-1980)




文 : goods_hk @ 東加豆

明眼人看得出致敬了悬念大师希区柯克的《后窗》与《惊魂记》：望远镜、电钻、幽闭恐惧症、精心布局的谋杀案，全都是希区柯克经典作品里的鲜明印记，而德帕尔马借助这些熟悉的符号向大师不断“献媚模仿”，并逐渐演练出属于自己的风格，整个影坛上恐怕也只有德帕尔马了。早在《剃刀边缘》里已精彩地诠释过这种怪诞迷离的悬念感，那场博物馆跟踪戏延续在这部的商场追踪里。复杂而紧凑的场面调度，空间感与人物表情动作营造出的紧张气氛依然是一流水准。

另外，影片开头与结尾两段呼应的场景进一步彰显出导演迷恋B级片与色情片的趣味。这一点也早在《凶线》里就已经全面暴露出来。这一部里更不惧争议找来真正的成人电影女星试镜，尽管后来被电影公司高层否决，但导演仍然在片中保留了一段色情电影片场的戏中戏，也算是对这个边缘群体的某种支持。

然而，对比《剃刀边缘》与《凶线》，这部《粉红色杀人夜》在剧本方面确实逊色不少，也许是过于沉溺在导演自我的趣味里，导致悬念设置不够高级，很容易看得出剧本里的伏笔，太容易猜出幕后真凶，导致揭秘的结尾部分不太让人满意。这也是这三部作品中，高潮段落最没意思的一部了。

本片不是什么鬼怪片，而是正宗的悬疑阴谋惊悚片，是标准的德-帕尔玛向希区柯克致敬的电影，但该电影的标签绝对是德-帕尔玛自己的。很奇怪，这部电影在豆瓣上竟然一篇长影评都没有，我怎么觉得这部电影也算经典呢？除了开始部分有一点拖沓，整部电影很快就进入状态了呀，偷窥，跟踪，艳遇，谋杀，一波接一波，都很吸引人，而且德-帕尔玛的镜头调度绝对一流，赏心悦目。

MEGA SPOILERS ALERT!

OKAY we know that there is at least one movie inside the movie. You might even add another one if you include the music-video part, when the MC goes to the porn & glamour basement. Which gives you (short) movie inside a movie, that is inside the movie you're watching.
So yeah, I get the fact that at least 90% of what we watch is actually a movie being shot, it's the second layer of the script.

Now let's talk about the plot in that movie being shot (the movie inside the movie).
There are at least two interpretations of the scenario, and I can't decide which one holds best.
1) The simple version : the MC gets framed for the crime itself, or probably is just manipulated in order to see an Indian killing the woman. The aim is that the real killer ("friend" of the MC, husband of the woman) gets his alibi and does not get caught for the crime he actually carried out.
This theory is clearly explained by the MC himself to Holly when she is at his home.

2) The afterthought version : the MC is a "conspiracy nut" (quoting the police officer here). Nothing of the previous version is really true. What it means is that the Indian does not exist (or at least that the scene towards the end, when Holly is burried, when the MC fights the Indian who is finally thrown in the river) never happened. This version would also explain why the scene in which the Indian was faking to repair some equipment near the house is not consistent with the Indian being the actual husband. Also why would the husband not hire someone to do the dirty job instead of him? And why would the husband own a huge saucerful in front of his wife's apartment? And how to explain that totally unreal scene in which the MC is kissing intensely the wife in the beach? Is she so desperate for sex? If Holly is dancing instead of the real wife, where does the real wife
go late at night? How does Holly get in the apartment if the husband himself does not have the key (he had to steal it after stalking the wife in his Indian disguise). On the day of the crime, why Holly did not show up for doing her usual dance, how did she get informed that on that specific day she didn't have to make the performance? How did Holly end up right next to a hole, meant to burry someone in the fight scene around the end?

The main problem is this one: in order to have a body double, some level of cooperation is necessary (just like in the end when the director is illustrating the concept of his movie through the porn shooting, in which two girls are actually acting, but the viewer thinks that it's actually the same person). Basically my point is that Holly cannot realistically play the body double without the real person voluntarily playing along with the plan.
But on the other hand, if you think not in terms of coherence but in terms of what is "possible" (certainly not "plausible"), just technically possible, all the questions raised above can be addressed without breaking any storyline logic, without raising any obvious contradiction. Strictly speaking, there are no plotholes, but only unlikely events or events that need extra planning that has not been shown in the movie (but which is potentially realized by the characters, especially the main antagonist).

But after a second thorough afterthought, it's the second version that predominates. Because the second is mainly destructive: okay, if the MC is a nut and the "main" theory (the conspiracy being real) does not hold, what does then? Who killed the wife? Did she even die or was all this just his imagination? Did she even EXIST? There is no end to it. If the husband did not offer to the MC to stay in that apartment for guaranteeing his inocence, why would he let the apartment to him in the first place, that seemed too "louche" from the beginning? The first version explains well the reason, but if we go with the second version, this question (and a lot more) remain unanswered.
  
I guess I need to see the movie a second time, in order to clarify these questions...
At least you know that you're in front of a great movie when you're totally into it, and when different conflicting interpretations can be explored.