万福玛丽亚

人生陷入困境是常事，在《万福玛丽亚》中，我们看不见哥伦比亚浓郁的民族风情，听不见那大海温柔的叹息，唯一得知 便是生活在那种穷困环境中的人们。《万福玛丽亚》是导演乔舒华·玛斯顿的电影处女作，有过拍摄连续剧《法律与秩序》的经验，《万福玛丽亚》这样的电影也自然是驾轻就熟。平实流畅的叙事，客观冷静的记录，将每一位观众都引入一个罪恶的魔窟之中。当一个十七岁的小女孩怀着身孕决定运送毒品补贴家用的时候，那种感觉就好像是上帝死了。

生活大概远比电影要残酷。

每次看欣赏第三世界国家电影的时候总要做一番挣扎，在这些国家中，有很多你想象不到的真实故事在上演，大多数故事都是关于绝望和死亡的。导演在《万福玛丽亚》这部电影中，并没有刻意去强调环境的艰苦，而是通过人物的生活，以及他们的对话和行为来展现哥伦比亚底层百姓的情困潦倒。在电影中，玛丽亚一方面受到残忍毒枭的欺压，另一方面受到美国海关警察的冷库对待，对于十七岁的女孩来说，这样的世界，除了残酷，没有更多的形容。女主角玛丽亚的视角和经历是整部电影的主线，观众只能跟随着玛丽亚来了解那个残酷的世界。从叙述手法上看，乔舒华·玛斯顿并没有可以的炫耀自己的拍摄技巧，反而用一种最真实简单的方式来讲述这个故事，平铺直叙，运用剧情本身的张力来推动电影的继续，用演员的真实情感来充实整部电影。值得一提的是，这部电影最大的特色就是配乐。以往，人们在看电影的时候，配乐会成为烘托情绪的一种手段，而在本片中，所有的情绪和张力依靠的都是电影本身的剧情。

十七岁少女的人生挣扎是绝望和悲伤。

在任何一个国家，穷苦的人们想要出人头地，唯一能依靠的就是自己。十七岁的玛丽亚不仅要撑起家庭的经济负担，还要尽量帮助姐姐来养活她的孩子。面对这样的困境，玛丽亚投射出来的是一种不符合年龄的坚韧。虽然导演一直将镜头放在玛丽亚身上，但是，纵观全篇，导演依然将哥伦比亚这个国家中的人民，为了生存而需要担负的代价表现的淋漓尽致。在遥远的第三世界国家，玛丽亚这样的任务比比皆是，年轻气盛的性格和低三下四的工作处境相互冲击着。他们拼尽全力想要得到自己渴望的成功。导演在本片中并没有过分夸大哥伦比亚的经济问题和民生问题，而是用写实的手法，旁敲侧击的让观众了解到哥伦比亚的绝望和悲伤。

整部电影除了玛丽亚的选择和坚持之外，更重要的问题则是所谓的美国梦。在美国式资本主义商业机器的压榨中，他们都认为美国便是掘金圣地。当他们冒着危险来到美国的时候，得到的是冷漠的海关，怀疑的态度。哥伦比亚的毒枭将她们作为运送毒品的工具，而美国司法机构却将她们视为危险的所在，到最后，她们拥有的只是被人宰割和永无止尽的折磨。
    

    影片讲述了一个哥伦比亚少女为了生活，用体内藏毒的方式，贩卖毒品到美国的故事。说实话，女主角长得还是不错的，不但找了个丑男兼穷男当男朋友，被搞大了肚子也不让对方负责，一开始还默默的在一家鲜花包装厂累死累活的当操作工。哥伦比亚的女孩真是纯朴啊，外貌条件这么好，在中国的话要么就傍上大款要么早就找个家里有钱的就嫁了。不多说了，再多说河螃蟹该来了，打住。

故事讲述的是一个十七岁的哥伦比亚少女玛利亚为了摆脱贫困的生活用吞服毒品胶囊的方式帮毒贩子运毒品的故事。其中经历了种种波折，甚至包括同伴因为毒袋在体内破裂而被毒贩子开膛而死的遭遇。

并不复杂的电影却另我印象深刻。在看电影前已看过简介，知道这不是一部温情片，讲的也不是很温情的故事。相反整个电影的前半部分都在暗示悲惨的结局，但是看到玛利亚的同伴被开膛取毒的那一幕却依然很震惊，震惊与那些人的残忍。看完回想起也知道这几乎是必然结果，那些毒贩在暴利的驱使下完全没有人性可言。如果说电影只讲玛利亚的同伴因为毒袋破裂而死亡这部电影充其量只能算一个悲情剧。有了接下来的一幕才让我们看到真实的残酷。

这部电影让我难忘的另外一个因素是导演的拍摄手法，或者说讲故事的方式。其实这部电影讲故事的手法很简单：平铺直叙。没有大卫林奇式的梦幻也没有我们常说的蒙太奇，整个电影就像一个贩毒纪录片，朴实的讲述一个贫困地区的年轻女孩子如何受屈辱，如何遇到毒贩，如何在毒贩的指导和帮助下吞下毒品.......色调普通，甚至可以说明快，没有悲情戏里常见的灰色调或者暗色调，甚至有点刻意欺骗观众之嫌。在我认为最悲惨的部分也只是轻轻带过，跟电影其他部分没有任何手法或者技巧上的不同。最后玛利亚和她的另外一个同伴逃离也是去找死去同伴的姐姐，也算有惊无险，顺利把毒品还给了毒贩保证了家人的安全。

这种近乎冷漠的拍摄手法马上让我想起了另一部电影《大象》，讲两个高中生在一个平常的日子制造的一场校园枪击事件。《大象》用最平静的手法讲一个最骇人听闻的惨剧。那不电影里导演极力刻画那所学校的普通学生的生活，那些生活越正常越普通越平淡就越反映出枪击事件的突然和不可理喻。这部电影拍摄的手法越平淡越让人感到事件的残酷生活的残酷。那些少女愿意承担这样的风险也反映出贫穷对人的心理甚至精神影响多么大。

看电影的时候几乎同时想起几年前在收获上看的陈丹燕的中篇《慢船去中国》，小说讲八十年代的一家上海人为出国付出的代价和出国后的生活。这家的大女儿从小就做着出国的梦想，除了英语什么都不愿意学，等到真的出了国却无法面对美国并不是处处黄金的现实最后精神失常。她的爸爸出国照顾她，为了留在美国不惜故意让车撞，又把他的小女儿接到了美国念书。我当时读这本小说的时候觉得上海人的生活条件算好的了还那么想出国很不可思议。现在才明白其实什么样的人都向往更好的生活。

其实对于绝大多数普通人来说没有那么多的理想和抱负，没有革命家或者科学家文学家诗人们的浪漫和伟大。大多数人都是为了房子车子甚至更多的时候为了吃饱一餐饭而辛苦奔波。我在船厂实习的时候看到有些工人为了并不算太多的工资而在狭小的船舱里烧电焊，忍受着酷热和焊丝燃烧后产生的化学气体，一干就是好几个小时。有些工人整天用气枪烧变形的钢板。这些人都是生活在最底层的人，他们干最重最没有前途的活，最快乐的时候就是每个月发工资后几个人一起出去喝酒。他们中的很多人十年二十年后还是干同样的活，只要身体不垮。这就是有些人的生活。除了多读几年书我跟这些人没有区别，都是生活在社会的最底层。

由于看到和经历过太多的贫穷和辛酸，我一般对那些所谓的悲情戏很不屑一顾，拍得假的会让人恶心，即使拍得很真实又能怎样？鲁迅教育我们要“直面惨淡的人生”。我有时候却在想直面之后又能怎样？不是所有的人都是革命家。而且即使我们写出最真实的生活又能怎样？保罗.策兰的《死亡赋格》能拯救多少犹太人的灵魂？我有时候又想也许是我自己太软弱，不愿意面对现实。也许我们不应该要求太多，也许我们只要做能够做的事情，也许我们只要写出真实。也许我们应该放弃所有的修辞放弃所有的手法先写写最普通的生活，最普通的人。

     演员表演真实自然。在看B超时露出像孩子一样天真甜美的笑容让我动容。而此之前都是沉重压抑，小小年纪就已沉稳世故。片子是对现实生活的直接陈述，没有站在道德的任何一面，每个人都有生存下去的理由，做着自己的选择。当人生活在不堪的最底层时，就很难有所谓正确的道德上的价值观。如果这部片子早几年看到，恐怕我是不会接受，觉得太过黑暗；而现在心智成熟可以接受到，不对别人做批判，但你可以，可以做出自己的选择。

This is the harrowing story of a (not quite) typical mule: Maria Alvarez (Moreno), an intelligent and fiercely independent 17-year-old girl from Colombia who agrees to smuggle a half-kilo of heroin into the United States.

Walking out of the theatre, I found myself at a loss of words.

What struck me the most about the story was how un-exaggerate everything was. Let it be Maria’s job, her village, or her family. They were portrayed with moderation and care. The result was impressively real and honest. Maria’s job was not uncommon for a third world country’s village girl of 17. I’ve read far worse treatment and horror stories of factory workers in ShenZheng, China. The real evil was in the lack of a choice. All Maria had was the job in the flower factory. It was the only economic opportunity presented to Maria. It was what her family, even her entire village depended on. Sounds familiar? I thought of that British mining town in Billy Elliot.

Like all country girls who rebelled against their fate, Maria made a choice, the same choice all country girls in her shoes made, to go to the city. On her way, she was tempted away from the possibility of becoming a rich family’s maid; instead, she was offered an adventure. Traveling, America, and American dollars added together proven to be too big a temptation to turn down for a rebellious country girl. Was there really a huge difference for her, between pulling thorns off roses and swallowing cocaine pellets and carried them to America? Both were rich people’s merchandises, both were beyond her reach. She was one little link in the economy chain. The latter sounded a lot more exciting than the former, and it would take her beyond the depressing village outside of Bogota. She was, finally, presented a choice.

The subsequent story made me admire Maria’s intelligence and coolness. But it also chilled me to the bone to see how cruel and brutal the drug world was (is).

Would legalizing drugs clean up all these brutality? Would legalizing drugs prevent Maria and her fellow Columbian women from participating in this dark and ugly trade?

If so, then why wouldn’t any country take that step?

“Because drugs are evil and hurt people who use them. How could you legalize something so damaging to our very selves? How could any government give out any signal that drug abuse is ‘legal’, therefore, ‘ok’?”

Because not legalizing it made it worse? Because the huge profit margin is driving the drug trade into a frenzy, and it is killing poor people like Maria left and right? Cigarette is legal, isn’t it? It is harmful to people’s health, too. Why is that okay to endorse but not drugs? Since when human being became such innocent creatures?

“If you legalize drugs, then more people will become drug addicts. That would be disastrous and self-destructive.”

Okay. People have self-destructive tendencies. There are evils in these world, too many. People always have the choice of whether to become drug addicts, just like people have the choice of whether to smoke a cigarette. Are you saying that government has the right to make the choice for its citizens that the government knows what is best? What about education? What about the fittest survive? It is not like I don’t get drug offered when I walk down Telegraph Ave. in Berkeley, it is not like high school kids don’t get drug offers in parties, at playground, on their way to school, anyways. It is happening right now. How much worse could it get? Besides, once it became legal, it could take away the “adventurous lure” it has right now to the rebellious type. Couldn’t it?

Drug abuse is part of modern societies already. We have to deal with it. But if legalizing it could take away the huge profit for the drug lord, then it could reduce their incentive to produce them. It could dry up so many money sources for terrorist groups and anti-government organizations. It could save Maria and girls like her the fate of dying on ruptured cocaine pellets that they carry in their stomach. It could save them from being treated like animals (”mule”), whose stomach was cut open so their cargo could be retrieved. Mule’s life was of no consequence. The dehumanization of Maria and her fellow mules was not caused by drug’s own evil-ness directly. It was made possible by the huge profit of drug trade, and its huge profit came from their illegal status. It was made possible because of human being’s own greed.

If government wants to do good to the society, then it could place the choice into everyone’s own hand. Take away the possibility to make people even more greedy than they already are. Don’t tempt them. Trust them.

In Chinese modern history, there was a much revered national hero, General Lin Zexu. Who initiate the fight against the British in 1840’s. He burned all the opium he could gather in a huge public display. His angry words are still recited in today’s Chinese elementary school classrooms, “Opium is evil, it weakened our people, our soldier, our country…” But the fact was, Chinese society was weakened from inside before opium even appeared. The closed society has been quietly rotten away from top to bottom for centuries. There was little outlet for real talent of the society. There wasn’t much progress happeneing for the society as a whole. Corruptions were prevalent. Opium provided an escape. A dying plant happened upon a killer disease. It was easy to blame the disease. Even though General Lin Zexu won his opium war, the final treaty between the British and the Qin Dynasty turned out to be the first of many humiliating treaties to come in China’s Modern History. Burning Opium didn’t help General Lin’s cause. Burning the entire country might. That was exactly what Chairman Mao tried over a century later.

There is a little analogy in gardening. When a flower attracted diseases, it was often because the plant itself was weak and unhealthy, either from lack of water, light, or too much water, etcetera. To prevent disease from happening, you either make the plant strong and healthy, or you try to shut down all disease sources. The latter has proven to be a harder path. Shutting down flow of air would usually cause more problems to the plant. Exposing the plant to the natural elements was usually more healthy for the plant. As long as the plant was healthy, often it could fight off many diseases using its own strength.