Does filming oneself and one’s own partner acting as non-professional actors equal documentary filming? Does exhibiting the process of fiction-making, or the making-of of fiction, equal non-fiction cinema? What if the non-professional acting finally gets an influence of your daily non-acting? Is reality also the result of our exercises in fictionalising reality? If two non-professional actors say that they stop acting when the camera continues to record, did they “really” stop acting? Is any exhibited making-of of a film, even the making-of of the making-of of the film, potentially fictional? Would the fictionality of the making-of be more real than the reality of the fiction which the making-of refers to? What if a dying man or a two year-old child participate in an explicitly staged fiction? Can they be prepared enough, manipulated enough, in order to not bring some non-fictional reality into fiction? If the explicitly staged fiction displays the drama of a non-professional actress being manipulated by the rules of acting, does this mean that the non-professional actress is less manipulated, in reality, because she accepts being manipulated in order to express through her acting how bad it would be to be a manipulated non-professional actress? Does a meta-cinematic reflection rise when we realise that the ethical questions discussed in the drama coincide with the classical ethical questions of documentary filmmaking, like the question of filming and, in a way, seeking for suffering? If the pact between the non-professional actors would be to perform their own real life, would the non-scripted moments of improvisation go beyond the limit of their acting domain and show an effective non-fiction? Which should be the position of the spectator when, the explicit ambiguity between fiction and non-fiction notwithstanding, the highly credible dialogues make us suspend our disbeliefs? Should we resist the suspension of disbelief only because the realistic dialogue of a couple stops at once with the couple revealing their acting? When the non-professional actors, a couple themselves, start then to behave as if in their acting performances, should their previous dialogues be taken as even more credible or even more staged?

All these questions arose in me during the viewing of Xiaozhen Wang’s two-hours long Love Poem. Even if the film is not devoid of genuinely dramatic moments, which we experience when we surrender to the cinematic suspension of disbelief, its main filmic experience coincides with our own intellectual inquiry on fiction and non-fiction. The climax of the interlocking layers of fiction and non-fiction comes in the last scene of the film, where the filmmaker takes the initiative to stop the camera, but this scene will confirm the impossibility of attempting to disentangle fiction and non-fiction. Then music will appear. Yes, Love Poem is mainly intellectual cinema, and I cannot but immediately add: so what? For in speaking of “intellectual cinema”, I already feel the pressure, today, of having to defend its legitimate existence against the anti-intellectualism that seems to loom among film scholars and cinephiles… Cinema has told, tells, and will always tell the story of the reflection on its own dispositive and fundamental issues.

Text: Giuseppe Di Salvatore

First published: April 26, 2020

Love Poem | Film | Xiaozhen Wang | CHN-Hong Kong-SAR 2020 | 114’ | Visions du Réel 2020, Burning Lights

More Info

多年以前，曾经执导过梁朝伟、刘德华版《鹿鼎记》的中国香港导演马玉辉拍摄了一部很有噱头的电视剧《天堂之约》。

据说这是一部以人为本、关爱女性、反战争、反封建的艺术佳作。

可惜，这部作品最终在市场上反响平平，甚至没有掀起什么浪花。

不过对潘时七来说，这部剧可能是她一生都忘不掉的作品。

【详细】

14100386

导演将毕力格一家人在‘北京天安门’背景下的全家福作为开场，有一定寓意着北京与这片草原的联系，毕力格的家人也对城市充满向往。到之后毕力格与达瓦，二锅头得知这个一开始奶奶口中的‘神赐的礼物’其实是国球乒乓，他们立马决定要将国球奉还给国家的反应，简直天真可爱。毕力格的坚持使二锅头焦灼，他一面担心朋友们，一面又担心自己。可心中的义气还是让他选择去‘营救’伙伴，导演用简简单单的这一幕，将每个孩子的内心活动裸露给观众。乒乓球始终作为重要物件贯穿全片，妈妈将毕力格的乒乓踩烂也将毕力格与朋友们的界线越拉越远。父亲想要男子汉般将乒乓球一分为二分给达瓦与毕力格，却没想到这样的乒乓已经失去了原有的意义。后段的处理显得有些急切，达瓦搬家离开，毕力格也要离开，我本以为毕力格会在远行的汽车上看到达瓦骑着马追上来道别的场景，但并没有。这一段友谊就这么带着一丝内疚的结束了。

《我的影子在奔跑》剧本写的真的好，很对我的胃口，一个自闭症家庭的故事，没有刻意煽情，虽然张静初饰演的妈妈田桂芳从头到尾眼泪就没断过，但是没有嚎啕大哭，没有展示出一丝绝望，能感觉到她的哭是一种情感的自然流露，不是为了博得同情，反而是生活的艰辛中折射出许多幸福和快乐。同时，本片没有执意批判社会对自闭症孩子的偏见和反感，在田桂芳的坚持下，排斥最强烈的幼儿园老师们慢慢接受了修直，后面修直在数学方面的天赋被别人发现和肯定，他亲生爸爸要送他出国留学，说明自闭症孩子也能闯出一片天，给人以鼓励和希望。

本片的幽默手法深得我爱，台词和剧情相互服务，没有道理不讲逻辑的话都被验证成真理，笨笨的连卖废品都算不清钱的田桂芳，却总是知道修直心里在想什么，这在修直眼里不可思议，也是魔力，所以尽管他从不表达对田桂芳的爱，尽管只是田桂芳田桂芳的呼来喊去，尽管他永远是冷漠脸，尽管他总是笑田桂芳笨，但是他完全离不开也舍不得田桂芳。他对妈妈的爱，是最最最深沉的。

全片确实没有高潮，结尾也没有升华，让人感觉这就是身边的一个故事，而不是一部电影，见证已是意义。故事很平淡，也很幽默，让我记住了数学很差但异常坚强的田桂芳和他的天才儿子修直。