Robert+B.+Weide

Ive often been asked to share the most surprising thing Ive learned about Woody Allen after spending two years making Woody Allen： A Documentary. My stock answer can be distilled to this： “Hes a fake.”

What I mean is that the public persona2） weve come to know as the “Woody Allen character” is just that—a character. The three Ns so often used to describe the public Allen are nebbishy3）， nervous and neurotic. But the contrast between the Woody character and the “real” Allen is never more in focus than when hes on the set， directing.

Because any director must have the confidence to think on his or her feet and answer about 20 questions every minute， its hard to imagine that anyone as anxious as “classic” Allen would survive in the midst of all that chaos. But the “real” Allen does more than survive. He displays a remarkable sense of calm when at work， a confidence and security that are the antithesis4） of his public image， and both the crew and the actors take their cues from him5）.

Every actor I spoke to on the London set of You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger， and every actor I interviewed whos worked with Allen over the years， from Diane Keaton6） to Owen Wilson7）， all speak of Allen as a low-key， unflappable8） director. A veteran cinematographer once told me the only directors he knew who got exactly what they wanted acted like fascists on the set and ran over anybody who got in their way. Allen proves him wrong.

Since histrionics9） are the last thing youll find on Allens set， he even questioned whether it was worth my while10） to film him at work. “My sets are boring，” he warned me. “Nothing exciting ever happens， and I barely talk to the actors.”

Yet some sort of alchemy11） does take place， because， more often than not， the end result with Allens films can be quite remarkable. （At the age of 76， he finds himself the recipient of four more Oscar nominations for his most recent release， Midnight in Paris—an accolade12） that seems to impress everyone but Allen.） For a guy who “barely talks to the actors，” Allen seems to repeatedly bring out their best. Under his tutelage13）， those actors have been nominated for 16 Academy Awards and have brought home the coveted statuettes14） six times.

So whats his secret？ As the saying goes， its complicated.

The comfort level that actors find on an Allen film might play a role. Josh Brolin15） refers to the set as “very blue-collar，” meaning it lacks the self-importance， the preciousness16） of many movie sets run by less accomplished directors. For instance， Allen does not retreat to his trailer while the crew is setting up the next shot. In fact， he has no trailer， which tends to diffuse any complaints an actor may have about his or her own accommodations. Between takes17）， Allen remains accessible to cast and crew as he sits in any nearby chair， talks to his assistant or his producer， reads the paper or practices his clarinet18） until hes needed again. “Its a great loafer19）s job，” he confessed to me. “Much less stressful than if I were running around delivering chicken sandwiches in a deli20） somewhere.”

It also helps that the hours are reasonable， and the actors arent overtaxed21）. Allen works mainly in single master shots and doesnt bother shooting coverage from numerous angles. This alleviates the need for actors to do the same scene over and over again just so that the editor will have different shots to use within the scene. So what appears to be a stylistic choice—a minimalist22） aesthetic—is actually just Allens way of staying on schedule by eliminating a lot of repeated takes. In his usual self-deprecating23） manner， he claims he simply doesnt have the patience to seek absolute perfection. Once he gets a good take， he wants to move on， wrap at a decent hour and get to the Knicks24） game in time for the tipoff25）.

This is not to say that actors who go to work for Allen are pampered26）. Far from it. His actors receive no more than the guild27）-mandated minimum payment for their services. There are no inflated star salaries and no perks28）—not even a second airline ticket for spouses， let alone for an entourage29）. If you prefer to live high on the hog30） while on location on an Allen picture， you could literally lose money. And some do！ Yet countless actors of the highest caliber31） wait for that call from Allens casting office saying the director is interested in them for a role.

Why do so many actors want to work with Allen？ It may have something to do with his Zen-like ability to direct by not directing.

Sean Penn32） tells me： “He didnt ask to see or know anything [about my character] until he rolled the camera. His feeling is that the best， complete thing hes going to get is going to come out of the actors instinct. And what he finds out on day one is whether or not he cast it well.”

The conventional wisdom about “serious” actors is that they want to dissect their character with their director， discussing everything from the characters back story to what he or she had for breakfast that morning. Allen engages in none of this “nonsense” （his word）. His theory， rather， is to “hire the best actors， shut up and get out of their way.”

The actors eat it up33）. Many of the performers I interviewed spoke of the sense of liberation they feel when a director is confident in their ability to come up with the goods without micro?managing their performance. Says Martin Landau34）： “We never discussed the character. I never heard anyone complain about it because I think it allows a good actor a kind of freedom： ‘Heres a canvas. Paint！ ”

Allen may be uninterested in babbling on35） about his “process，” but hes definitely going after a specific result， whether or not his actors realize it. Naomi Watts36） seems to have caught on to his subtle sleight of hand37）. She refers to Allen as “the best actors director Ive ever worked with，” but concludes， “Theres not as much free rein as were led to believe， because he has a sense of how the scenes going to work and we need to move within those parameters.” Still， she realizes that “he wants to empower us to find it . . . and hell do it in such a gentle fashion that we dont even understand its being done.”

Larry David38） is more to the point： “This notion I hear that he doesnt direct， I mean， thats kind of ridiculous. He gets what he wants.”

Its not unusual for genuinely modest artists to oversimplify the creative process that led to their success. Allen is no exception. “Its not rocket science，” he said. “This is not quantum physics. If youre the writer of the story， you know what you want the audience to see because youve written it. Its just common sense. Its just storytelling， and you tell it.”

So much for Allen revealing the bag of tricks that has led him to become one of the most heralded39） auteurs of the past four decades. Finding him more at ease discussing practical matters， I pressed him on one that I was especially curious about： Why is he so willing to eschew his right to that private trailer on the set—something few directors are willing to live without？

On this point， he was more open.

“I dont like the bathrooms in those trailers，” he told me. “I dont know where that water comes from.”

Sometimes， the Woody character and the real Woody are indistinguishable.

人們常常問(wèn)我，在耗時(shí)兩年制作《記錄伍迪·艾倫》這部紀(jì)錄片之后，我在伍迪·艾倫身上發(fā)現(xiàn)的最令人意外的事情是什么。我通常的回答可以歸納為一句話：“他是個(gè)假象?！?/p>

我的意思是說(shuō)，作為“伍迪·艾倫式角色”而為人們所了解的那個(gè)公眾形象只不過(guò)是一個(gè)角色而已。公眾眼中的艾倫最常被人們冠以三個(gè)形容詞：膽小怕事、局促不安和神經(jīng)兮兮。但在片場(chǎng)執(zhí)導(dǎo)時(shí)，伍迪的角色和他“真人”之間的反差就最為鮮明地體現(xiàn)出來(lái)了。

鑒于任何一個(gè)導(dǎo)演都必須有才思敏捷的自信，能夠應(yīng)對(duì)每分鐘約20次的提問(wèn)，因此難以想象一個(gè)像“典型的”艾倫那樣焦慮不安的人能夠在這樣的混亂中堅(jiān)持下來(lái)。但“真實(shí)的”艾倫不僅僅堅(jiān)持了下來(lái)。他在工作時(shí)還表現(xiàn)得極為鎮(zhèn)靜，那種自信和成竹在胸的感覺(jué)與他留給公眾的印象截然相反。劇組的工作人員和演員全都聽從他的指揮。

我在影片《遭遇陌生人》的倫敦片場(chǎng)交談過(guò)的每一位演員以及我采訪過(guò)的這些年來(lái)與艾倫共事過(guò)的每一位演員——從黛安娜·基頓到歐文·威爾遜——都說(shuō)艾倫是位低調(diào)、鎮(zhèn)定的導(dǎo)演。一位經(jīng)驗(yàn)豐富的電影攝影師曾對(duì)我說(shuō)，他所了解的那些能夠充分實(shí)現(xiàn)自己意圖的導(dǎo)演在片場(chǎng)無(wú)不表現(xiàn)得像個(gè)法西斯分子，任何妨礙他們的人都會(huì)被他們踩在腳下。艾倫則是個(gè)反例。

由于在艾倫的拍片現(xiàn)場(chǎng)根本見不到那種夸張做作的場(chǎng)面，他甚至懷疑我花費(fèi)時(shí)間和精力去拍攝他的工作狀態(tài)是否值得?！拔业钠瑘?chǎng)很無(wú)聊，”他警告我說(shuō)，“從來(lái)不會(huì)發(fā)生什么令人激動(dòng)的事，而且我?guī)缀醪桓輪T們說(shuō)話。”

但艾倫的片場(chǎng)的確會(huì)產(chǎn)生某種奇妙的魔力，因?yàn)槎鄶?shù)情況下他的影片的最終表現(xiàn)都會(huì)相當(dāng)出色。（在76歲時(shí)，他憑借最新發(fā)布的作品《午夜巴黎》又獲得了四項(xiàng)奧斯卡獎(jiǎng)提名——這樣的榮譽(yù)似乎令所有人贊嘆，只有艾倫本人除外。）作為一個(gè)“幾乎不跟演員們說(shuō)話”的導(dǎo)演，艾倫似乎能一再激發(fā)出演員的最佳狀態(tài)。在他的指導(dǎo)下，那些演員共16次獲得學(xué)院獎(jiǎng)的提名，并6次將人人垂涎的小金人收入囊中。

那么他的秘訣是什么？正如人們常說(shuō)的，這很復(fù)雜。

演員們?cè)谂臄z艾倫的影片時(shí)感到很舒適，這也許是其中的一個(gè)因素。喬?！げ剂_林形容艾倫的片場(chǎng)“非常平民化”，意思是這里看不到許多成就不及艾倫的導(dǎo)演的片場(chǎng)里充斥的那種傲慢和做作。比如，當(dāng)工作人員為下一段拍攝作準(zhǔn)備時(shí)，艾倫不會(huì)躲到自己的拖車?yán)铩Ｊ聦?shí)上，他沒(méi)有拖車。這也往往會(huì)消除演員們對(duì)自己設(shè)施待遇方面的不滿。拍攝間隙，演員和工作人員仍然可以隨時(shí)找到艾倫，因?yàn)樗妥诟浇S便一張椅子上，與助理或制片人交談，讀報(bào)，或是練習(xí)單簧管，直到拍攝再次需要他為止。“這是游手好閑者的理想工作，”他向我坦承，“比在某個(gè)地方的熟食店?yáng)|奔西跑地送雞肉三明治輕松多了。”

另一個(gè)有幫助的因素是工作時(shí)間安排合理，演員們的工作強(qiáng)度不會(huì)過(guò)大。艾倫主要使用單一主鏡頭拍攝，不會(huì)費(fèi)心地從多個(gè)角度拍攝畫面。這就使演員們無(wú)需反復(fù)演出同一場(chǎng)戲，僅僅為了讓剪輯師能在同一個(gè)場(chǎng)景中使用不同角度的鏡頭。這表面上看是艾倫選擇了極簡(jiǎn)主義美學(xué)的電影風(fēng)格，實(shí)際上他只是通過(guò)省去大量重復(fù)拍攝這種方式來(lái)保證拍攝進(jìn)度。他以一貫過(guò)分謙遜的態(tài)度稱自己只是沒(méi)有那份耐心去追求絕對(duì)的完美。一旦拍到不錯(cuò)的鏡頭，他就想繼續(xù)往下拍，然后適時(shí)收工，及時(shí)趕去看尼克斯隊(duì)比賽開場(chǎng)的中圈跳球。

這并不是說(shuō)為艾倫工作的演員都被寵壞了。事實(shí)遠(yuǎn)非如此。演員出演他的影片只能拿到演員公會(huì)規(guī)定的最低片酬：既沒(méi)有抬高的明星薪酬，也沒(méi)有特殊待遇——甚至不會(huì)多提供一張機(jī)票給演員的配偶，更不用說(shuō)其他隨行人員了。如果你想在艾倫影片的外景地奢侈地享受，那你可能真的會(huì)賠錢。真有人賠錢！然而，無(wú)數(shù)最優(yōu)秀的演員都在期待艾倫的選角辦公室打來(lái)電話，說(shuō)導(dǎo)演有興趣找他們出演一個(gè)角色。

為什么有這么多的演員想與艾倫合作？也許這和他富有禪意的導(dǎo)演能力有關(guān)，那就是無(wú)為而為。

西恩·潘告訴我：“在正式拍攝前，他沒(méi)有要求看或是了解任何[與我的角色有關(guān)的]事。他的想法是，他所能拍到的最完美的表演將來(lái)自于演員的本能。他在開拍第一天要弄清楚的是角色選派是否恰當(dāng)。”

通常人們對(duì)于“認(rèn)真的”演員的概念是他們想要和導(dǎo)演一起剖析自己的角色，從角色的身世背景到他（她）那天早餐吃了什么，巨細(xì)無(wú)遺地探討。艾倫可不做這種“蠢事”（他的原話）。相反，他的觀點(diǎn)是“請(qǐng)最好的演員，然后閉嘴，不要妨礙他們”。

演員們對(duì)此很是欣賞。我采訪的許多演員都談到，當(dāng)導(dǎo)演相信演員無(wú)需過(guò)細(xì)的指導(dǎo)就能表現(xiàn)出合乎要求的東西時(shí)，他們能感受到一種自由。馬丁·蘭道說(shuō)：“我們從來(lái)不討論角色。我從沒(méi)聽到任何人對(duì)此有怨言，因?yàn)槲艺J(rèn)為這給了好演員某種自由發(fā)揮的余地：‘這兒有塊畫布，盡情畫吧！”

艾倫也許無(wú)意贅述他的“過(guò)程”，但他確實(shí)是在追求某種特定的結(jié)果，無(wú)論演員們是否意識(shí)到了這一點(diǎn)。娜奧米·沃茨似乎對(duì)他這種巧妙的手法有所參悟。她稱艾倫為“我合作過(guò)的最會(huì)引導(dǎo)演員的導(dǎo)演”，但她也總結(jié)說(shuō)：“我們的自由度并沒(méi)有他讓我們以為的那么大，因?yàn)閷?duì)于某個(gè)場(chǎng)景應(yīng)該怎么表現(xiàn)，他有自己的認(rèn)識(shí)，我們得在那個(gè)范圍之內(nèi)進(jìn)行表演。”盡管如此，她也意識(shí)到“他想讓我們自己找到他所要的效果……他采取的方式非常溫和，我們甚至都不會(huì)察覺(jué)到他在那么做”。

拉里·戴維的話更簡(jiǎn)明扼要：“我聽到有人說(shuō)他不導(dǎo)戲，我覺(jué)得這種說(shuō)法挺可笑的。他能得到自己想要的結(jié)果。”

真正謙遜的藝術(shù)家常常對(duì)引領(lǐng)自己走向成功的創(chuàng)作過(guò)程輕描淡寫，艾倫也不例外?！斑@不是什么高深的學(xué)問(wèn)，”他說(shuō)，“這不是量子力學(xué)。如果你是故事的作者，你就會(huì)知道自己希望觀眾看到什么，因?yàn)楣适率悄銓懙?。這不過(guò)是常識(shí)，只是講故事而已，你講就好了?！?/p>

對(duì)于使他成功躋身過(guò)去40年間最受歡迎電影導(dǎo)演之列的錦囊妙計(jì)，艾倫只透露了這么多。我發(fā)現(xiàn)他在談到實(shí)際事物時(shí)較為放松，于是向他追問(wèn)了一個(gè)令我感到特別好奇的問(wèn)題：他為什么愿意放棄在片場(chǎng)使用私人拖車的權(quán)利？很少有導(dǎo)演愿意這樣做。

對(duì)于這個(gè)問(wèn)題，他回答得更坦率。

“我不喜歡那些拖車?yán)锏南词珠g，”他對(duì)我說(shuō)，“我不知道里面的水是從哪兒來(lái)的?！?/p>

有些時(shí)候，伍迪的角色和他本人還真是難以區(qū)分。

1. Zen [zen] n. [宗]禪宗

2. persona [p?（r）?s??n?] n. 表面形象

3. nebbishy [?neb??i] adj. 〈口〉膽小怕事的

4. antithesis [?n?t?θ?s?s] n. 對(duì)立面

5. take ones cues from someone：照某人的樣子做，聽某人的勸告

6. Diane Keaton：黛安娜·基頓（1946～），美國(guó)電影演員、導(dǎo)演和制作人，曾出演伍迪·艾倫執(zhí)導(dǎo)的影片《安妮·霍爾》（Annie Hall）并獲得奧斯卡最佳女主角獎(jiǎng)。

7. Owen Wilson：歐文·威爾遜（1968～），美國(guó)演員、電影劇作家，曾出演伍迪·艾倫執(zhí)導(dǎo)的影片《午夜巴黎》（Midnight in Paris）并獲得金球獎(jiǎng)最佳音樂(lè)及喜劇類電影男主角獎(jiǎng)提名。

8. unflappable [?n?fl?p?b（?）l] adj. 〈口〉不易激動(dòng)的；鎮(zhèn)定的

9. histrionics [?h?stri??n?ks] n. 裝腔作勢(shì)，做作的言行

10. worth ones while：值得某人（花時(shí)間、精力等）的

11. alchemy [??lk?mi] n. （改變事物的）魔力；（事物的）神秘變化

12. accolade [??k?le?d] n. 榮譽(yù)；贊美

13. tutelage [?tju?t（?）l?d?] n. 指導(dǎo)，教導(dǎo)

14. statuette [?st?t?u?et] n. 小雕像

15. Josh Brolin：?jiǎn)滔！げ剂_林（1968～），美國(guó)演員，曾出演伍迪·艾倫執(zhí)導(dǎo)的影片《遭遇陌生人》（You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger）。

16. preciousness [?pre??sn?s] n. 過(guò)分講究，做作

17. take [te?k] n. 一次拍攝的電影（或電視）鏡頭

18. clarinet [?kl?r??net] n. [音]單簧管

19. loafer [?l??f?（r）] n. 游手好閑者，閑蕩者

20. deli [?deli] n. 〈美口〉熟食店，等于delicatessen。

21. overtax [???v?（r）?t?ks] vt. 使負(fù)擔(dān)過(guò)重，使工作過(guò)度

22. minimalist [?m?n?m?l?st] adj. 極簡(jiǎn)抽象派藝術(shù)的

23. self-deprecating [?self?depr??ke?t??] adj. 自我貶低的；過(guò)分謙虛的

24. Knicks：即紐約尼克斯隊(duì)（New York Knicks），美國(guó)國(guó)家籃球協(xié)會(huì)（NBA）的創(chuàng)始球隊(duì)之一，位于紐約市。

25. tipoff [?t?p?f] n. [籃] （比賽開始時(shí)的）中圈跳球

26. pamper [?p?mp?（r）] vt. 給……以過(guò)度的關(guān)懷和照料；縱容

27. guild [ɡ?ld] n. 協(xié)會(huì)，同業(yè)公會(huì)

28. perk [p??（r）k] n. 〈口〉特殊待遇；額外所得

29. entourage [??nt??rɑ??] n. [總稱] （全體）隨行人員

30. high on the hog：〈美口〉奢侈地，揮霍地

31. caliber [?k?l?b?（r）] n. 水準(zhǔn)，質(zhì)量；能力

32. Sean Penn：西恩·潘（1960～），美國(guó)演員，曾出演伍迪·艾倫執(zhí)導(dǎo)的影片《甜蜜與卑微》（Sweet and Lowdown）并獲奧斯卡最佳男主角獎(jiǎng)提名。

33. eat up：對(duì)……極為欣賞，為……歡呼

34. Martin Landau：馬丁·蘭道（1928～），美國(guó)演員，曾出演伍迪·艾倫執(zhí)導(dǎo)的影片《愛與罪》（Crimes and Misdemeanors）并獲奧斯卡最佳男配角獎(jiǎng)提名。

35. babble on：喋喋不休地談?wù)?/p>

36. Naomi Watts：娜奧米·沃茨（1968～），澳大利亞演員，曾出演伍迪·艾倫執(zhí)導(dǎo)的影片《遭遇陌生人》（You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger）。

37. sleight of hand：把戲，花招

38. Larry David：拉里·戴維（1947～），美國(guó)演員、編劇、電視制作人，曾出演伍迪·艾倫執(zhí)導(dǎo)的《怎樣都行》（Whatever Works）等影片。

39. herald [?her?ld] vt. 為……歡呼，歡迎