但一旦看进去会觉得有爽到，因为不如枯燥的教会论理（如同上一场在同一个影院的另一个大厅看的Konklave），这片子在Freud的主场，是从深度记忆（姑且称之为潜意识吧）跟信仰观的发育切入，也就是讲人植根于个体性与社会性应如何正视上帝的“存在”。但比较画蛇添足的是设计Freud开始动情、咆哮并拿痛苦说事，强调他早夭的孙子不应是基于God’s plan，因为他刚5岁还没有发展出完整的人性（著名的前6年定一生论调）；也许这一情节是为了丰满Freud人本思想这一面，但我不认同思想石破天惊如斯竟也沦为人伦庸常的无知奴隶，渴望以情理来支持论理-首要参考Freud对Logos主义的坚持，爱惜学术羽毛以至于不容许一丝逻辑漏洞的存在，不然精分真得从根源de-legitmize消解了（“Der alte Stoiker hatte die Kontrolle über sein Leben behalten – bis zum Ende”），其次是看Freud对Anna的精神分析案例，足见他作为精分的pioneer，前无古人，是极其不吝于突破各种纲常以实践自己的意志的；他对陀思妥的推崇也说明了这一点，试图从各种外部线索中找到能印证己方观点的证明，当然这是外话。
"Freud's Last Session" is a thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating film that delves into the clash of two of the most influential minds of the 20th century: Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, and C.S. Lewis, the renowned Christian apologist and author of "The Chronicles of Narnia." The movie, based on the play by Mark St. Germain, imagines a fictional encounter between these two giants in 1939, just before Freud's death and during the height of Lewis's career.
The film opens with a brief introduction to Freud's London home, which has been transformed into a makeshift office due to the impending threat of Nazi invasion. The setting is intimate and claustrophobic, reflecting the psychological tension that is about to unfold. Freud, portrayed by Anthony Hopkins, is depicted as a man at the end of his life, still sharp but visibly weakened by illness. His character is a mix of vulnerability and stubborn conviction in his theories.
C.S. Lewis, played by Matthew Goode, is introduced as an Oxford don struggling with his newfound fame. He is invited to Freud's home for what is supposed to be a simple chat but quickly turns into a battle of ideas. The two men engage in a philosophical and psychological debate that touches on the nature of faith, the existence of God, and the human condition.
The screenplay is the heart of "Freud's Last Session," as it weaves together the personal and professional lives of both characters. The dialogue is sharp, witty, and laden with intellectual challenges. The film does an excellent job of presenting both Freud's atheistic and deterministic view of the human psyche and Lewis's theistic and hopeful perspective. The arguments presented are not only engaging but also serve as a microcosm of the broader cultural and intellectual debates of the time.
The performances by the lead actors are commendable. They bring depth and nuance to their roles, making Freud and Lewis feel like real people rather than caricatures of historical figures. The chemistry between the two leads is palpable, and their interactions are the highlight of the film. The supporting cast, including Freud's daughter and her partner, adds to the authenticity of the setting and the characters' worlds.
Visually, the film is simple but effective. The set design is meticulous, capturing the essence of Freud's study and the era. The cinematography is straightforward, focusing on the actors and their interactions, which is appropriate given the dialogue-driven nature of the film. The costume design and makeup also contribute to the period authenticity, making the audience feel as if they are witnessing a real moment in history.
The film's pacing is deliberate, allowing the audience to fully engage with the ideas being discussed. There are no action sequences or special effects to distract from the core of the story. Instead, the tension builds through the dialogue and the actors' performances. The climax of the film is not a dramatic revelation but a moment of mutual understanding and respect between the two men, which is both satisfying and poignant.
One of the strengths of "Freud's Last Session" is its ability to present complex philosophical concepts in an accessible way. The film does not shy away from the difficult questions but does so in a manner that encourages viewers to think and engage with the material. It is a film that can be enjoyed by both those familiar with the works of Freud and Lewis and those who are encountering them for the first time.
In conclusion, "Freud's Last Session" is a well-crafted film that offers a fascinating exploration of two contrasting worldviews. It is a testament to the power of dialogue and the human capacity for understanding and empathy, even in the face of deep ideological differences. The film is not only a tribute to the legacy of Freud and Lewis but also a celebration of the human spirit's quest for meaning and connection. It is a film that will resonate with viewers long after the credits roll, prompting them to reflect on their own beliefs and the nature of the human experience.
很多个值得思考的问题：1.开创新的学派被当作异徒的时代嘲讽与佛洛依德强大的自我坚持的力量？是否能为后代人进步提供思想帮助？ 2，弗洛伊德与女儿的互相救赎是否等同于互相依恋？ 3.佛洛依德对女儿的工具性实验，是否成功帮助女儿超越自己，取得显著的成功？ 对我而言很多个有意思的地方，2个小时根本无法复刻最后会面……不认为是两个聪明人的对话，更像是苏格拉底和他学生的对话，很明显，刘易斯思想境界很低只看得到上帝……根本就不是一个维度的世界，观点不仅对立而且高下立见，角度可以不一样，但是流露出的思考却差距很大……不喜欢刘易斯的傲慢与无知，尤其是对弗洛伊德强烈的批判。后面很感动的是老爷子对女儿的保护，有个喜欢安娜的老师以嘲讽佛洛依德的方式或者看似读懂去帮助安娜的方式，逼迫佛洛依德放弃对女儿的“控制”，说了一堆让人觉得好笑的言论，其实老爷子是保护女儿的同性恋行为啦……也不是真的控制女儿，在自己的保护陪伴治愈下，允许女儿同性恋……很有意思。
好多梦境与现实的衔接
美，太美了。
在梦境中思考看清楚现实世界，在现实里对抗梦境的残忍。
很美，很多暗喻读不懂……知识还是太浅薄了。
????????
如果表演有正统或真正科班的说法，那么，安东尼·霍普金斯就是极为少数的天花板：正向且极致！较之于“飞跃疯人院”、“困在时间里的父亲”的戏剧故事不同，《佛洛依德的最后一会》全篇几乎都是以对话作为行为线，这样的交流给表演带来了极大的挑战。全世界较为普遍的几乎都已放松，或稍加应景反应作为表演基础，但是霍普金斯却一直在跟着语言内容作基础而随之“生活”呈现着。这样由事件、交流信息作为主导表演的习惯，和时下“表现主义”的放松派似乎有着极细微的差异，但养成习惯后出来的效果却有着质的区别！！就如佛洛依德之所以成为杰出的的精神分析家，是因为他不会随机从表象就去定论事物的本质，而是去多角度的、换位，并就当下行为可能由之前经历，或之后判断等而作出的探讨。这样分析路径，其实可以放在任何一个工作中，包括表演！PS：这片的意义，不是大部分豆瓣所能理解的。
29. Dec., 2024, Yorck Kino: New Yorck Saale, Berlin
被Freud最早吸引来，然后钻进影厅便发现C.S.Lewis这个双主角，以及主持夹带的一些私货（大篇幅的爱尔兰及少量UK成分）；正如影片最后讲的，其实谁也无从考证Freud在生命最后时刻见了谁、又说了什么话，所以这里引入Lewis是很能说明什么的；但即刻按下不表，因为篇幅之冗长将偏离本文的重心。
这个放映厅并不大，来回大概40-50人的规模，却也坐满了，在德国官映的第十天，且临映前还有陆续加座（我右侧的座就被很晚售出）。我推测大多数人都是冲着精分来的，只因为一个有趣的事实，前半段陆续有两对青年人离场，大抵是表达他们对于“篡改”或通俗化Freud的愤怒，因为在西方也有不少原教旨，对开天辟地祖师爷自然是如天神一般的仰慕。
片长108分钟，近年稍微注重思想性的片子似乎都要超过传统的一个半小时，但2小时是一个新的坎。后半段我基本能猜到节奏，但这种片子看的是台词而非情节，甚乎许多转场也靠的是对话的交锋，以至于我经常要去想这里的布景与时代的关系，虽然到结尾终于把所有头绪都厘清了，但在观影中途却很艰难。
德语的subtitle很有意思，跟英文原版不一样，强调了信念交战。也许这是更概括性的，但英文版留白的功夫更深，且更贴近咨询的概念-差点儿让我迷糊于Lewis登门拜访的目的到底是什么，难道是作为病人病例？纯为了打个嘴炮（他曾在Freuds门庭徘徊不前，并多次提及要把正约推迟verschieben）？还是学界交流的必要性（想一下Freud对20世纪整个欧洲学术的强大影响力，如同后期的福柯）？Lewis大力批判Freud的无神观，但影片里描绘的极肤浅，连Freud因家族传统属犹太信仰且幼年发生过信仰混乱都不知情。
对小女儿Anna的勾画也体现了整个电影的selectivity。那就是她身上集咨询伦理、同性耻观、思维遗产Erb等等主题于一身，可以说是影片在场发展最迅疾的一个角色，这种安排不无道理（升华戏剧冲突的同时并未脱离历史）：要知道Freud有六个子女，但在对生命终场的刻画中剧组只允许Anna独力存在，并且从台词设计中加深了观众的这种印象：“为什么书桌上只有Anna的画像？妻子的呢？”“呃，在其他住处。”这里的住处可联想为Wien老家，但那却是在当时的历史情形下永远回不去的地方（此时欧洲大陆已被Nz阴云笼罩，所以全片发生于London的乡下，现在已经是Freud博物馆的一栋花园式住宅里）。但我在这不愿更多描画Anna，感觉像只为烘托Freud与造势女性解放气氛的一颗棋子。
回到两人的观念交锋上来，重中之中自然是辩论上帝是否存在，这也是该二人终生思想比较之下最大的差异性。巧妙的是Lewis是因一战经历一点点从无神论者转变为Christian，而Freud则相反，童年即为犹太独父及天主教保姆（精神地位则等同于母亲）影响导致信仰混乱，但直到生命的终结，他仍坚持自己的犹太“血统”是更文化观而非宗教性的。这里争论的大部分非常考验观众的课外储备，而且更类文字游戏而非核心的价值冲突，直接导致很多IMDB跟烂番茄的低分评价。
但一旦看进去会觉得有爽到，因为不如枯燥的教会论理（如同上一场在同一个影院的另一个大厅看的Konklave），这片子在Freud的主场，是从深度记忆（姑且称之为潜意识吧）跟信仰观的发育切入，也就是讲人植根于个体性与社会性应如何正视上帝的“存在”。但比较画蛇添足的是设计Freud开始动情、咆哮并拿痛苦说事，强调他早夭的孙子不应是基于God’s plan，因为他刚5岁还没有发展出完整的人性（著名的前6年定一生论调）；也许这一情节是为了丰满Freud人本思想这一面，但我不认同思想石破天惊如斯竟也沦为人伦庸常的无知奴隶，渴望以情理来支持论理-首要参考Freud对Logos主义的坚持，爱惜学术羽毛以至于不容许一丝逻辑漏洞的存在，不然精分真得从根源de-legitmize消解了（“Der alte Stoiker hatte die Kontrolle über sein Leben behalten – bis zum Ende”），其次是看Freud对Anna的精神分析案例，足见他作为精分的pioneer，前无古人，是极其不吝于突破各种纲常以实践自己的意志的；他对陀思妥的推崇也说明了这一点，试图从各种外部线索中找到能印证己方观点的证明，当然这是外话。
总的看来，片子有点随意，但这并不该完全从贬义的方向去解读。真正要把握住的，是要看到一些杰出的人物传记片已脱离宏大叙事的阴霾，同时也与彻底虚无的后现代个体主义割席，兼顾全体的同时凸显细处，如同profile、切片或者一刹那的营造（却是永恒，比如这里所说的Freud的最终谈话），这样有质量保证的下限，但上限却是无比宽阔。我很钟意于这对于叙事体或更大的媒介体的聪明选择，一定程度上缓解了创作的现实性与艺术性之争，并让有意从中得到些什么、而不只是趋炎附势（比如为了Freud名头而来的几位离席者）的观众能细细去咀嚼在生命这108分钟里上映于眼前的故事，反过来观照生活，上帝存在与否并不重要。想到这我又开始摩挲那本Traumdeutung黄色的封皮，我来德国买的第一本书，以此继续连接那不朽的伟大灵魂。
"Freud's Last Session" is a thought-provoking and intellectually stimulating film that delves into the clash of two of the most influential minds of the 20th century: Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, and C.S. Lewis, the renowned Christian apologist and author of "The Chronicles of Narnia." The movie, based on the play by Mark St. Germain, imagines a fictional encounter between these two giants in 1939, just before Freud's death and during the height of Lewis's career.
The film opens with a brief introduction to Freud's London home, which has been transformed into a makeshift office due to the impending threat of Nazi invasion. The setting is intimate and claustrophobic, reflecting the psychological tension that is about to unfold. Freud, portrayed by Anthony Hopkins, is depicted as a man at the end of his life, still sharp but visibly weakened by illness. His character is a mix of vulnerability and stubborn conviction in his theories.
C.S. Lewis, played by Matthew Goode, is introduced as an Oxford don struggling with his newfound fame. He is invited to Freud's home for what is supposed to be a simple chat but quickly turns into a battle of ideas. The two men engage in a philosophical and psychological debate that touches on the nature of faith, the existence of God, and the human condition.
The screenplay is the heart of "Freud's Last Session," as it weaves together the personal and professional lives of both characters. The dialogue is sharp, witty, and laden with intellectual challenges. The film does an excellent job of presenting both Freud's atheistic and deterministic view of the human psyche and Lewis's theistic and hopeful perspective. The arguments presented are not only engaging but also serve as a microcosm of the broader cultural and intellectual debates of the time.
The performances by the lead actors are commendable. They bring depth and nuance to their roles, making Freud and Lewis feel like real people rather than caricatures of historical figures. The chemistry between the two leads is palpable, and their interactions are the highlight of the film. The supporting cast, including Freud's daughter and her partner, adds to the authenticity of the setting and the characters' worlds.
Visually, the film is simple but effective. The set design is meticulous, capturing the essence of Freud's study and the era. The cinematography is straightforward, focusing on the actors and their interactions, which is appropriate given the dialogue-driven nature of the film. The costume design and makeup also contribute to the period authenticity, making the audience feel as if they are witnessing a real moment in history.
The film's pacing is deliberate, allowing the audience to fully engage with the ideas being discussed. There are no action sequences or special effects to distract from the core of the story. Instead, the tension builds through the dialogue and the actors' performances. The climax of the film is not a dramatic revelation but a moment of mutual understanding and respect between the two men, which is both satisfying and poignant.
One of the strengths of "Freud's Last Session" is its ability to present complex philosophical concepts in an accessible way. The film does not shy away from the difficult questions but does so in a manner that encourages viewers to think and engage with the material. It is a film that can be enjoyed by both those familiar with the works of Freud and Lewis and those who are encountering them for the first time.
In conclusion, "Freud's Last Session" is a well-crafted film that offers a fascinating exploration of two contrasting worldviews. It is a testament to the power of dialogue and the human capacity for understanding and empathy, even in the face of deep ideological differences. The film is not only a tribute to the legacy of Freud and Lewis but also a celebration of the human spirit's quest for meaning and connection. It is a film that will resonate with viewers long after the credits roll, prompting them to reflect on their own beliefs and the nature of the human experience.
这场对话发生的时间，早于佛洛伊德当天与 C.S.路易斯的会面，它出现在这里，固然交代了弗洛伊德父女之间、以及安娜与桃乐丝之间的种种纠葛，但它还为把握全片提供了线索：
第一，佛洛依德与CS路易斯的会面，如他自己所说：“简直太扯了——我们竟以为能（靠一次会面）就解决史上最大的谜团（关于“上帝”是否存在的问题）”；对此，路易斯以一种自我调侃的方式、严肃地回应到：“而且更扯的是——竟然还有那么多人对此连想都不想。”
佛洛依德和路易斯，在他们各自的人生中、在此次会面之前，想必围绕着诸如此类的问题，一定已经进行过一而再、再而三的探讨，如果将沉思的内心也看做是一种无声的发言，那更是“无数次”——他们早已无数次地探寻，如今竟然指望通过多一次会面，就得到不一样的结果。
真是精神失常，这俩人，是真疯。
第二，上述片头处，安娜其实并未被父亲的“精神失常”警告所吓倒，毕竟她是有勇有识的女人，她这样回应：“因此，精神健全最确切的征兆，是能够改变心意的能力。”
这个回复，必须给10分。
安娜的话充满着歧义性，并因此接近真理。她至少表达了三种可能：
a，你如此三番四次地拒绝我，希望我就此不提，你也是疯的——但你可以改；
b，我当然在你看来，是疯的，但我也可以改——我老是要先问你，下次我改，我不问了；
c，我们一起合作进行了这么多次关于桃乐丝的对话，我们都疯，下次我们一起改。
然后，a、b、c其实在剧中都发生了，甚至连“d”——即安娜试着不再让桃乐丝进入自己的生活这种可能也包含了。这里，尤为值得一说的是c，它不仅涵涉安娜跟自己父亲的故事，还勾连着佛洛依德和CS路易斯的会面。
当然，如片尾所言，无人知道那个有着思想界“Father Magician”之誉的佛洛依德，在他生命将尽的时，到底是见了谁。
不过如果就按本故事来看，那个几乎站在某个思想领域的顶端的老者，到底为什么非要见一个“基督教卫道学者”？相应地，又到底是什么原因，让路易斯宁可撇下至爱一人面对“危险的一天”，也非要赴约不可？在这世界大战即将爆发的日子里，背着个防毒面具？
对此问题，那是因为：世界变成这样，思想是负有责任的。
而足够代表两种思想的人，又必然是个坚其思想的人。
那矛盾就来了：这两人的这种性质的见面，到底应该理解、如何期待呢？
- 期待他们能朝着对方各自转变心意、达成某种和解？
这是不是太肤浅了？
- 对这类严肃对话乃至交锋不抱希望，不过是各自强调彼此的立场？
这是不是不太符合思想者的人性，也不太符合世界终将从战争走向新生的脉络？
所以，片子一开始就定义了：
我们将看到两个——
都傲慢自大、但也深知自己的局限的，
都有着种种脆弱与恐惧、但又坚定而正派的，
始至终都坚持捍卫自己以经验和智识凝结的真理的人
之间的一场貌似毫无结果的——因而也就是“疯子之间才有”的对话。
剧中，当CS路易斯终于抛出了他动态的“趋近”比静态的“离得近”更近（上帝）的理论的时候（参CS 路易斯的名著《四种爱》以及《卿卿如晤》），他的“上帝”信仰，基本上已是不败的了；而当佛洛依德几次咆哮着问这个世界为什么有这么多痛苦，甚至人类的所有动机的深处不过是一场“无言”（说不出，因而需要精神分析来揭示）的痛苦的时候，他的“上帝”荒诞论，基本上也是没有再讨论余地的了。
但是，这一切不过是貌似毫无结果。
最后，安娜不再需要“爸爸的同意”了，她带着女朋友直接就坐到了父亲的面前，坚定地微笑，而作为父亲的佛洛伊德，轻微地点了点头；而CS路易斯教授则与“对方辩友”惺惺相惜地握手道别，并且收到了弗洛伊德临别赠给他的提前的圣诞礼物，一本书，上面写着他与佛洛依德共同的实践以及期许：
实践情况是：“From error to error”（从错误到错误）
期许是：“and discovers the entire truth.”（完整的真理）。
唯有到这里，我才真正放下心来。
我们每个人的确可能如疯子一般从事、交往、渡过一生，不但如陈嘉映所言“思想的短兵相接极其难得”，而且基本上每个人总归会有机会在某刻忏悔——自己对他人造成的伤害、自己的成就的代价是某些特定别人的痛苦，更进一步，我们总会有机会发现“每个人都是一座孤岛”的强大预言力量；但另一方面，我们总归可以做一个真人，一个真挚的人，让自己所言、所行是出于自己的本意，没有矫情，不是作为手段而是作为目的本身，活出某种如实的、信以为真的自我，为不论是哪种“善好”而体会使命感与自我奉献。
本片就展示了这样的两个真人之间的一场争执。
思想的争论是没有结果的，由于语言的存在、经验的横亘、自我确定性的要求，争论的结果常常是各自观念的进一步确立。但争论本身是种交往，这就意味着交往主体的品质具有决定性，当两个真挚的人相遇，无论他们之间有多少分歧，他们其实在一开始就实现了一致，无论他们有多么疯狂，他们最终都会各自有所觉悟和调整。而且，从电影来看，这些或狂或狷或迷路的人，总有精灵守护——他们彼此爱护。
盯着片末升起的字幕，想起穆旦的诗：