重译罗兰巴特之文：嘉宝的面孔（图文，原创）

夺标

嘉宝与赫本的面孔－谈两类女性美 （图文，原创）

标标按：如果您问我西洋女演员里我最喜欢谁的面孔？肯定有嘉宝，而且说不定排在第一位！此外就是玛丽莲梦露以及先前介绍过的罗密施奈德等，以后还会陆续介绍。
顶尖的美女，在我眼里，首先应具备一种高度的辨识性和神秘感，仪态万方，不可捉摸，而且在每个年龄阶段都傲视同龄人，富有诗意与哲理、激情的面孔，斯芬克斯与天使、魔鬼的一体化，女人、女孩、女王的一体化，足以诠释人类最复杂的情感、思绪与最纯粹的美。

最极致的斯芬克斯面孔莫过于嘉宝了！






这篇文章的翻译者是我年龄相仿的表姐小美，苏州美女和才女，她和我一起在德语区留学，那时候我们相依为命，一起翻译和创作诗歌，一起结社。。。可以 说，她是我人生道路上引领女性美的重要导师。现在她已经回国在大学执教，是日尔曼文学和语言学者，中德古典诗词比较文学学者 ，德语同声口译员，也曾是天 涯诗词版主。




重新翻译罗兰巴特之文：嘉宝的面孔－谈两类女性美





这确是一张令人激赏的脸。在《克莉丝蒂娜女王》（Reine Christine，瑞典女王）一片中，其化妆有如一张雪白的面具，这张脸不是画上去的，而是用石膏打造出来的，保护它的是色彩而非容貌。这片雪白既虚弱又紧密。光 是眼睛，就厚得像奇特的柔软肌肉，但并非毫无表情。它们其实是微弱而抖颤的伤口，这张脸极端美丽，是雕塑在某个平滑易碎的物体上，既完美又短暂，很像卓别 林粉白的脸孔，他单调无神的两眼，以及他图腾般的表情。



面具全然的诱惑（例如，古董面具），暗示着脸的原型而非秘密主题（如意大利的半边面具）。嘉宝给人一种人类生灵的柏拉图式意念，这也解释了为什么她 的脸在性意义上并不明确，但却未令人疑惑。这部电影（由克莉丝蒂娜皇后轮流装扮为骑士和女人），主要是未做任何区别，嘉宝没有以穿异性服装癖的方式表演。 她总是她自己，没有什么伪装，在她的皇冠或宽边帽下，都带着这副雪白而孤寂的脸。大家所给予她的称谓——“女神”（The Divine），想要表达的讯息，应该是她肉体上的美丽，而非一种超越的美，她是从天堂下凡的，在那儿，所有物体都以最清晰的方式形成并臻于完美。她自己 了解——有多少女演员愿意让群众看见他们的美人不祥的成长过程。不会是她！这个本质不会降尊纡贵，她的脸蛋不会有任何现实，除了自己完美的状态，这是智力 上的而非形式上的。本质开始逐渐模糊，逐步被墨镜、宽边帽和放逐掩饰：但它绝对不会恶化。
而且在这种神格化的脸蛋中，一种比面具还尖锐的东西浮现了：一种在鼻尖和眼眉之间的自愿性，这是一种完人性的关系；一种罕见和脸部两个区域相关的个 别功能。一幅面具不过是线条的总和；相反地，一张脸则是它们主题上的和谐。嘉宝的脸蛋代表一种虚弱的时刻，这个时刻就是当电影将要自本质的美滤出存在主义 的意义、当原型借重凡人脸蛋的眩目、当肉体的清晰本质让位给女人的抒情诗时。






嘉宝的脸蛋被视为一种转换，它令人忆念起两个肖像的时代，它确认了从敬畏到魅力的过程。众所周知，我们今天是在演化的另一极端：例如奥黛丽．赫本的 脸庞，就很个人化了，不只因为它奇特的主题（女人是小孩，女人是小猫），也因为她这个人脸庞的独特规格，上面没有留下任何本质，而是由形态学方面的功能做 无限复杂的组成。就语言方面的意义而言，嘉宝的奇特是观念的秩序，奥黛丽．赫本的则是实体的秩序。嘉宝的脸是一种理念，赫本的脸则是一种事件。

夺标

许蔷蔷许绮玲版
每次荧幕上出现嘉宝脸蛋的特写，观众就能如痴如醉陷入癫狂。他们会像吸了迷药一样迷失在她的画影里，此时银幕上的脸儿代表了肉体的某种最纯粹的状 态，叫人欲亲不得，欲罢不能。前些年Valentino的脸孔害得影迷闹自杀，现今嘉宝的脸也承袭了禁忌之爱的规则，那肉身会让迷恋她的人陷入神秘的万劫 不复的深渊。


这确确实实是一张让人倾慕的脸儿。几年前巴黎重新放映的克里斯汀娜女王Queen Christina一片中，那张脸上的妆有着面具一般的洁白度和厚度：这已经不是一张描画出来的脸蛋儿了，而是一盏石膏凝出的脸，覆盖在美色之下如此炫 目，使得石膏本身的轮廓不再清晰。在这柔弱而又密实的雪白粉妆下是那黑色的眼睛，她们奇特而柔软，极富表达能力，就好象两个颤弱扑闪的伤口。尽管美得无与 伦比，这脸不是画出来的而是雕塑出来的，她光滑易碎，一旦抵达完美的同时便譬如朝露，渐渐无异于查理卓别林的白粉脸，他那暗沉单调的眼睛以及他的招牌表 情。


然而面具的绝对诱惑（比如古董面具）也许更多暗示的不是秘密（像意大利的半遮面具暗示的那样），而是人类面孔的原型这个主题，凝视嘉宝的脸，会让人 联想到人类的柏拉图式精神家园。这也解释了为什么嘉宝的脸毋庸置疑没有明显的性别定义。虽然此片（片中Christina女王是骑士的同时也是位女性）加 助了这种无定义性，但嘉宝本人并没有采用易装癖的表演技巧；她完全是本色表演，毫无矫揉造作，不管是戴着皇冠还是骑士帽下都是那张一如继往的雪白而清寂的 脸。她被冠以“女神”之名，也许更多传达的不是她美貌绝伦，而是她作为一具凡人躯体却承袭了天堂才有的本质：天生的完美和俐落。嘉宝本人也深谙此道：有多 少女演员被观众目睹了她们不详的美丽的蜕变。可她偏不这样，她的本质不容轻亵，并且她的面孔除了完美不容丝毫的现实味道--这比前者还要聪明。嘉宝的完美 本质会渐渐黯淡，逐步被墨镜，宽檐帽遮掩并退出舞台，但她永远不会腐朽。

尽管如此，这张被奉为神明的脸庞上折射着比面具更锐利的东西：从眉弓到鼻孔的曲线自发自觉演绎着人性的关联；这是如此罕见，他独具一格却组合了整个 面孔。面具不过是线条的组合而已；而这张面孔则相反，她比线条组合的主题是否和谐更高一层。嘉宝的面孔正代表了如此一个柔弱的时刻：当原型与魅惑或凡间的 面孔勾勾搭搭时，银幕正企图从“本质的美”中描摹出“美的本质”，而此时，肉身联同本质的定义在这个女人的歌谣中顿时清晰，且屈尊跪拜。

嘉宝的面孔是联系两个影像时代的过渡，她是一条长廊，一端启程膜拜，另一端抵达施媚。众所周知，今天我们已经进化到更完善的那端了：就拿奥黛丽。赫 本的面孔来说吧，这是一个个性化的面孔，不仅仅因为她所蕴涵的主题（女人是孩童，女人是猫咪），还因为赫本本人以及她的脸都已经成了一本独家说明书，它涵 盖了无穷的形态组合和词素功能，却无“本质”可言。如果用语言学作个比喻，嘉宝的单数形式就已经可以缔造概念的规则。而奥黛丽赫本阐述的是“物质”的规 则。嘉宝的面孔是概念，而赫本的是行为。


摘自《神话：大众文化诠释》（法）罗兰．巴特著，许蔷蔷许绮玲译，上海人民出版社 1999年3月第一版。
嘉宝（Garbo）的脸蛋依然属于电影中会令观众欣喜的时刻。人会在人的影像中迷失，有如迷药一般。面孔代表一种血肉的具体呈现，既难以触及又难以 抛弃。几年前，范伦天努（Valentino）的脸曾引发自杀事件。嘉宝的脸蛋则仍然带有优雅情爱的规则，脸上的血肉给人一种毁灭性的感觉。





The face of Garbo

Garbo still belongs to that moment in cinema when capturing the human face still plunged audiences into the deepest ecstasy, when one literally lost oneself in a human image as one would in a philter, when the face represented a kind of absolute state of the flesh, which would be neither reached nor renounced. A few years earlier the face of Valentino was causing suicides; that of Garbo still partakes of the same rule of Courtly Love, where the flesh gives rise to mystical feelings of perdition.

It is indeed an admirable face-object. In Queen Christina, a film which has again been shown in Paris in the last few years, the make-up has the snowy thickness of a mask: it is not a painted face, but one set in plaster, protected by the surface of the colour, not by its lineaments. Amid all this snow at once fragile and compact, the eyes alone, black like strange soft flesh, but not in the least expressive, are two faintly tremulous wounds. In spite of its extreme beauty, this face, not drawn but sculpted in something smooth and friable, that is, at once perfect and ephemeral, comes to resemble the flour-white complexion of Charlie Chaplin, the dark vegetation of his eyes, his totem-like countenance.

Now the temptation of the absolute mask (the mask of antiquity, for instance) perhaps implies less the theme of the secret (as is the case with Italian half mask) than that of an archetype of the human face. Garbo offered to one's gaze a sort of Platonic Idea of the human creature, which explains why her face is almost sexually undefined, without however leaving one in doubt. It is true that this film (in which Queen Christina is by turns a woman and a young cavalier) lends itself to this lack of differentiation; but Garbo does not perform in it any feat of transvestism; she is always herself, and carries without pretence, under her crown or her wide-brimmed hats, the same snowy solitary face. The name given to her, the Divine, probable aimed to convey less a superlative state of beauty than the essence of her corporeal person, descended from a heaven where all things are formed and perfected in the clearest light. She herself knew this: how many actresses have consented to let the crowd see the ominous maturing of their beauty. Not she, however; the essence was not to be degraded, her face was not to have any reality except that of its perfection, which was intellectual even more than formal. The Essence became gradually obscured, progressively veiled with dark glasses, broad hats and exiles; but it never deteriorated.

And yet, in this deified face, something sharper than a mask is looming; a kind of voluntary and therefore human relation between the curve of the nostrils and the arch of the eyebrows; a rare, individual function relating two regions of the face. A mask is but a sum of lines; a face, on the contrary, is above all their thematic harmony. Garbo's face represents this fragile moment when the cinema is about to draw an existential from an essential beauty, when the archetype leans towards the fascination or mortal faces, when the clarity of the flesh as essence yields its place to a lyricism of Woman.

Viewed as a transition the face of Garbo reconciles two iconographic ages, it assures the passage from awe to charm. As it well known, we are today at the other pole of this evolution: the face of Audrey Hepburn, for instance, is individualized, not only because of its peculiar thematics (woman as child, woman as kitten) but also because of her person, of an almost unique specification of the face, which has nothing of the essence left in it, but is constituted by an infinite complexity of morphological functions. As a language, Garbo's singularity was the order of concept, that of Audrey Hepburn is of the order of the substance. The face of Garbo is an Idea, that of Hepburn, an Event.

Roland Barthes. Elements of Semiology. Translated by Annette Laversy and Colin Smith.
New York: Hill and Wang, 1967.