主演：娜丁·拉巴基阿德尔·卡拉姆法雅徳·耶敏卡琳·多弗雷德里克·斯坦福德ClaudeBazMoussawbaaLaylaHakimYvonneMaaloufAntoinetteNoufailyJulianFarhatAliHaidarKevinAbboudPetraSaghbiniMostafaAlSakka
类型：剧情喜剧导演：娜丁·拉巴基 状态：HD国语 年份：2011 地区：法国 语言：其它 豆瓣：7.9分热度：545 ℃ 时间：2022-10-31 08:41:59
温馨提示：[DVD：标准清晰版] [BD：高清无水印] [HD：高清版] [TS：抢先非清晰版] - 其中，BD和HD版本不太适合网速过慢的用户观看。
Unity and coexistence are often easier to pronounce than to actually practice. That was the case in Where do we go now? – in which a village nothing but mundane – but with the exception that Muslims and Christians are cohabiting in the same village. Their coexistence, however, are under increasing strain as sectarian conflicts seep into their daily lives, enraging the males in the village.
Sectarian conflict would be one of the most common themes presented in this movie: Indeed, the fist fights, the gun shots, and the screaming all forebode the coming of violence. And this is definitely not the first time that this sort of violence erupted. When a village was surrounded by barbed wires and landmines, with residents getting killed in conflict, we could almost imagine an almost identical past where the fate of this small village was inevitably linked to a larger history.
The barbed wires and landmines form a powerful symbolism on multiple levels – it first, as previously mentioned, signifies previous existence of violence, conflict, and death, but at the same time underwrites the village’s isolation. How did those barbed wires get placed? Don’t they have an isolating effect for the village from the outside world? It leaves much room for speculation, that maybe the reason that Muslims and Christians were able to coexist was the existence of those wires. But ultimately, even the most insurmountable physical barrier succumbed in front of modern technology, which delivered news of those conflicts to the male residents. The theme of technology’s role is worth contemplation – whether their existences fueled sectarian and other types of conflicts? Isn’t it that we’re living in a conflict-ridden world now?
But maybe technology both matters and does not matter. With motivations, be it sectarian or other reasons, people would find ways for violence. If it’s not guns, then knives. It seemed that just as the characters in the film continuously mentioned, they are already cursed. Religious leaders in this film do not play an important role in this film because they’re powerless to rein in their adherents, which would be weird when you think about the supposed role of those leaders. Maybe it’s not because of religious differences that people resort to violence, but a simple us-them mentality made religion an easy scapegoat and fanned violence and contention. When the Father told the Imam “Dear Imam, forgive them, as they don’t know what they’re doing,” it led me questioning why people always attribute religions as the root cause for violence, but not something inherent in us.
And maybe we should reflect on our behaviors in light of that. When the head of the village ceremoniously announced the opening of TV, he used MSA and celebrated how unity could overcome divide, and the lofty ideal of unity and coexistence. But when the test arrived, did he stand up to it? Maybe we should stop those empty talks of ideals, dreams – all unrealistic and would ultimately prove disappointing – and actually focus on human beings – as did the women in this movie. They’re the heroes.
The rich symbolisms in this film are especially impressive. The beginning of the film shows several footages – both Muslim and Christian women cleaning the final resting place of their families, the barbed wires and the minefields. These gradually start to make sense as the movie progresses, and, upon reflection, convey great meaning. The graveyard is an especially potent one, when the Ukranian dancers remarked “even dead, they’re divided.” And when they ultimately Nassim, the question “Where do we go now?” put another layer of emphasis on this piece of land. The question not only indicates a dilemma, but most importantly, may show the uncreativeness when people deal with these issues.
“Where do we go from now?” The question got me thinking. If they’re only going away from this crisis, but not finding a real, creative path, maybe the tragedy would re-enact themselves again in this One Hundred Years of Solitude-like piece of land.
地理概念上的中东与宗教世界里的穆斯林交织不清。宗教和政治让这一地域不太安宁，西方世界对丰盈资源的觊觎无非火上浇油。支撑这个绝对男权社会的是那些坚强隐忍的女人们，尽管我们看不到她们的面容。近年中东电影的兴起让世人有机会看见黑纱背后的笑泪，尤其当这些影像出自她们之手，感受尤为真切。
Shirin Neshat，伊朗人，电影《Women Without Men》导演。四个不同背景的女人，却都直接或间接地因为男性而让生活失色：婚后不幸的，追求自由和自立；向往婚姻的，遭遇强奸而失信；热血激昂的，因亲兄逼婚寻短；无奈卖身的，渴望改变却迷途。魔幻现实主义的滤镜给影片上了点灰蓝，让现实不那么伤感，给了理想线天光。避世的柏拉图终究不是办法，大环境如是，你想抛弃社会，社会偏偏寻你，难道真真只有卖身女的亡故才是另外一个开始，才能看得见那一片梦田？
Nadine Labaki，黎巴嫩人，电影《Et maintenant on va où ?》导演。与第一部电影《Caramel》相比，新片变得更加深刻饱满，不变的是积极乐观的态度。在一个偏远的小山村里，伊斯兰教徒们和基督教徒们大抵和平相处。一日，大城市里两教又开始了流血冲突，女人们，为维持村里安宁的生活倾其所能，不论信仰，企图避免冲突的蔓延而继续扩大寡妇的队伍。戏里的男人们终日埋头为所谓的“理想”而奋斗，把争执扩大成宗教迫害。忠诚这东西，让人纯粹得可怕。连两教的主事都能和平沟通甚至“串通”，昏了头的是那旺盛的男性荷尔蒙。可笑的是，女人们在宗教里不断寻找救赎而将生活继续，男人们只是把宗教当作他们的“红宝书”，一呼百应。结局的最后一句话呼应电影片名，还是有种“革命尚未成功”的迷茫。
这片土地是否真的注定颠簸？这里的女人们是否真的有摘下黑纱的一天？我对这边土地有着和对黄土地一样的疑问。真的，现在我们该走向何处呢？
影片通过众女性如何齐心合力力挽狂澜解救自己的男人、儿子于宗教冲突。故事充满张弛有度的乐趣与感动，带来很强的观赏性。歌曲的融入延续了其作品对音乐的敏感触觉。
不过女性的理想主义也使得整体重剧情而轻人物，而且不少看似很国际化的设置可能存在一定的宗教忌讳。
许是因为女性所具有的细腻又温情的特点，黎巴嫩美女导演纳迪·拉巴基在她自导自演的影片中，往往以一种温和柔曼的基调来表述人物的各种遭遇及情感变故，即便情绪再激荡再愤懑，也没有让情绪波动到横冲直撞不可收拾的境地，在不急不徐间，却已将观众引领进正历经着不幸的女性的生活和心灵，一如她07年的作品《焦糖》，全片温润而自然，于柔和甜美中又带着点苦涩的滋味，彷如生活的原味。
而这部《吾等何处去（Where Do We Go Now）》依旧有着拉巴基影片一贯秉持的乐观真挚的态度，整体叙事也比之前的作品更为饱满，且在悲喜交加的叙事中流露出几许迷惘和隐忧，仿佛中东那不明朗的前途和未来。的确，各种因素纷扰、各种利益纠葛已将这块地球村落变成了燃烧着的火药桶，而在这个男性占绝对主导地位的社会体系中，看到有才华女导演的影片，就仿佛打开了一扇窗，将那些女性的隐忍和坚强，黑色面纱后的笑颜与泪目，缓缓展现在观众面前。
本片没有复杂的架构，节奏舒缓而适宜，也没有刻意炫耀的技巧，虽说此番拉巴基也尝试了很多不同类型片的表达方式，并不时地以歌舞交织的形式来体现一种活着的精神，但这些尝试在这部影片中显得可爱而有趣，并不显花哨和多余，在充满地域风情的动听配乐的辅助下，这个略显理想化的故事时常闪烁出一些可贵可敬的东西。有评论认为纳迪·拉巴基在这部电影里提供了一种“消解战争”的方法，更值得一提的是，拉巴基此番影像的初衷是美好而良善的，虽然作为不谙宗教的人，这样的解决途径不见得有多么高明多么成熟，却也是着眼于当下的实际，至少比那些天花乱坠的理论和演说要来得真诚。
有人认为影片主题关乎信仰和死亡，其实，它更脚踏实地，它注重人的生存，在一个坟墓比活人多的村庄，让现有的人存活下去，才是亟待解决的问题，从这个意义上说，影片具有浓郁的人道关怀情结。影片故事的原型发生在一个孤立的小村庄里，几个不同信仰的妇女因不忍看到乡亲们因为宗教的原因相互残杀无谓送死，选择了以独特的方式试图唤醒男性亲属的感知。虽然片中妇女们变换宗教信仰的做法在现实中很难推行，因为这几乎颠覆了恪守宗教信仰的中东人的三观，但不失为一次尝试，大概因为这层原因，《华尔街日报》认为该片确是一部异常勇敢和有趣的电影。
片中的女人们总是游走在恐慌、心碎与勉力之中，为避免男人们听到、看到有关宗教冲突的新闻，她们不惜关掉广播弄坏电视，即便她们千方百计地维系着邻里和睦，不可预料的事还是发生了，儿子被流弹误杀后母亲心碎的眼泪，阿米拉对在咖啡馆里剑拔弩张的两派男人的怒吼，都在一定程度上成为这部影片悲痛的核，而为了不激化本已箭在弦上的矛盾，母亲决定隐瞒真相，将儿子的尸体藏匿起来，甚至不惜枪伤了冲动的大儿子，而她闯入教堂对着圣母像声泪俱下的控诉，也让观众对宗教于人类社会中的存在方式感到一丝无奈，宗教原本无碍，可怕的是利用宗教的人。
为了让好战的男人们偃旗息鼓，女人们合伙给他们制造“可口食品”，这场戏被呈现得看似欢乐，每个女人都载歌载舞地忙碌着，但内里的痛在活泼的歌舞中隐隐飘散着。赫尔曼·黑塞说过：“有些人觉得坚持才是坚强，但有时候放手才是坚强。”比起那些动辄就擦拳磨掌的男人，懂得适时的放手的女人才更不易。
（杂志约稿）
http://nicolew.blog.hexun.com/81609698_d.html
村里的人来自不同家庭，拥有不同信仰，男人们总是分党结对，远没有那一群妇女来的团结。但无论男人，女人，塔克拉的杂货店和艾玛的咖啡馆都是每天要去的地方。在这个两个小空间，让男人们走得越来越远，而女人们也因此格外团结。外界的耳濡目染和内部的小矛盾很快也让男人们站在了对立面，冲突一触即发。
女人们为此想了各种荒谬而可笑的方式——冒充圣母显灵、邀请乌克兰舞女。可这一切并没有让男人们的关系得到改善，反而更加恶化。而纳西姆的死也为女人们提供了一个契机。可悲的是他的死亡并没有由小乡村日渐加深的宗教冲突所导致的。而是借此告诉观众，在这个与世隔绝的村庄之外，每天有各种持枪或者更严重的暴力冲突在轮番上演。如果村民继续愚昧下去，终有一天会酿成同样的悲剧。
这塔克拉第一次怀疑起她所信仰的神灵，这个悲伤愤怒的女人质问圣母为什么没有保护好自己的儿子。也是从这一刻开始她彻底抛弃了原来的信念，在她的世界里有一种东西坍塌了。所以才有了最后的大反攻，女人们似乎终于赢得了一次胜利。（对这个部分的强调让另一个《人妻冲冲冲》的译名更为贴切。）
当最后抬着棺木不知所措的男人喊出“WHERE DO WE GO”时，一切显得无比可笑。或许冲突在这个小山村会消失，但我并不认为这群愚蠢的男人真正了解了妻子们的用心。