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.

人們常常問我，在耗時兩年制作《記錄伍迪·艾倫》這部紀錄片之后，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：“他是個假象?！?/p>

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

鑒于任何一個導演都必須有才思敏捷的自信，能夠應對每分鐘約20次的提問，因此難以想象一個像“典型的”艾倫那樣焦慮不安的人能夠在這樣的混亂中堅持下來。但“真實的”艾倫不僅僅堅持了下來。他在工作時還表現(xiàn)得極為鎮(zhèn)靜，那種自信和成竹在胸的感覺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》的倫敦片場交談過的每一位演員以及我采訪過的這些年來與艾倫共事過的每一位演員——從黛安娜·基頓到歐文·威爾遜——都說艾倫是位低調(diào)、鎮(zhèn)定的導演。一位經(jīng)驗豐富的電影攝影師曾對我說，他所了解的那些能夠充分實現(xiàn)自己意圖的導演在片場無不表現(xiàn)得像個法西斯分子，任何妨礙他們的人都會被他們踩在腳下。艾倫則是個反例。

由于在艾倫的拍片現(xiàn)場根本見不到那種夸張做作的場面，他甚至懷疑我花費時間和精力去拍攝他的工作狀態(tài)是否值得?！拔业钠瑘龊軣o聊，”他警告我說，“從來不會發(fā)生什么令人激動的事，而且我?guī)缀醪桓輪T們說話。”

但艾倫的片場的確會產(chǎn)生某種奇妙的魔力，因為多數(shù)情況下他的影片的最終表現(xiàn)都會相當出色。（在76歲時，他憑借最新發(fā)布的作品《午夜巴黎》又獲得了四項奧斯卡獎提名——這樣的榮譽似乎令所有人贊嘆，只有艾倫本人除外。）作為一個“幾乎不跟演員們說話”的導演，艾倫似乎能一再激發(fā)出演員的最佳狀態(tài)。在他的指導下，那些演員共16次獲得學院獎的提名，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？正如人們常說的，這很復雜。

演員們在拍攝艾倫的影片時感到很舒適，這也許是其中的一個因素。喬希·布羅林形容艾倫的片場“非常平民化”，意思是這里看不到許多成就不及艾倫的導演的片場里充斥的那種傲慢和做作。比如，當工作人員為下一段拍攝作準備時，艾倫不會躲到自己的拖車里。事實上，他沒有拖車。這也往往會消除演員們對自己設施待遇方面的不滿。拍攝間隙，演員和工作人員仍然可以隨時找到艾倫，因為他就坐在附近隨便一張椅子上，與助理或制片人交談，讀報，或是練習單簧管，直到拍攝再次需要他為止?！斑@是游手好閑者的理想工作，”他向我坦承，“比在某個地方的熟食店東奔西跑地送雞肉三明治輕松多了?！?/p>

另一個有幫助的因素是工作時間安排合理，演員們的工作強度不會過大。艾倫主要使用單一主鏡頭拍攝，不會費心地從多個角度拍攝畫面。這就使演員們無需反復演出同一場戲，僅僅為了讓剪輯師能在同一個場景中使用不同角度的鏡頭。這表面上看是艾倫選擇了極簡主義美學的電影風格，實際上他只是通過省去大量重復拍攝這種方式來保證拍攝進度。他以一貫過分謙遜的態(tài)度稱自己只是沒有那份耐心去追求絕對的完美。一旦拍到不錯的鏡頭，他就想繼續(xù)往下拍，然后適時收工，及時趕去看尼克斯隊比賽開場的中圈跳球。

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

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演能力有關，那就是無為而為。

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

通常人們對于“認真的”演員的概念是他們想要和導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，巨細無遺地探討。艾倫可不做這種“蠢事”（他的原話）。相反，他的觀點是“請最好的演員，然后閉嘴，不要妨礙他們”。

演員們對此很是欣賞。我采訪的許多演員都談到，當導演相信演員無需過細的指導就能表現(xiàn)出合乎要求的東西時，他們能感受到一種自由。馬丁·蘭道說：“我們從來不討論角色。我從沒聽到任何人對此有怨言，因為我認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！”

艾倫也許無意贅述他的“過程”，但他確實是在追求某種特定的結果，無論演員們是否意識到了這一點。娜奧米·沃茨似乎對他這種巧妙的手法有所參悟。她稱艾倫為“我合作過的最會引導演員的導演”，但她也總結說：“我們的自由度并沒有他讓我們以為的那么大，因為對于某個場景應該怎么表現(xiàn)，他有自己的認識，我們得在那個范圍之內(nèi)進行表演。”盡管如此，她也意識到“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，我們甚至都不會察覺到他在那么做”。

拉里·戴維的話更簡明扼要：“我聽到有人說他不導戲，我覺得這種說法挺可笑的。他能得到自己想要的結果。”

真正謙遜的藝術家常常對引領自己走向成功的創(chuàng)作過程輕描淡寫，艾倫也不例外。“這不是什么高深的學問，”他說，“這不是量子力學。如果你是故事的作者，你就會知道自己希望觀眾看到什么，因為故事是你寫的。這不過是常識，只是講故事而已，你講就好了。”

對于使他成功躋身過去40年間最受歡迎電影導演之列的錦囊妙計，艾倫只透露了這么多。我發(fā)現(xiàn)他在談到實際事物時較為放松，于是向他追問了一個令我感到特別好奇的問題：他為什么愿意放棄在片場使用私人拖車的權利？很少有導演愿意這樣做。

對于這個問題，他回答得更坦率。

“我不喜歡那些拖車里的洗手間，”他對我說，“我不知道里面的水是從哪兒來的?！?/p>

有些時候，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～），美國電影演員、導演和制作人，曾出演伍迪·艾倫執(zhí)導的影片《安妮·霍爾》（Annie Hall）并獲得奧斯卡最佳女主角獎。

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

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

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

10. worth ones while：值得某人（花時間、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；贊美

13. tutelage [?tju?t（?）l?d?] n. 指導，教導

14. statuette [?st?t?u?et] n. 小雕像

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

16. preciousness [?pre??sn?s] n. 過分講究，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. 使負擔過重，使工作過度

22. minimalist [?m?n?m?l?st] adj. 極簡抽象派藝術的

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

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

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

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

27. guild [ɡ?ld] n. 協(xié)會，同業(yè)公會

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，質(zhì)量；能力

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

33. eat up：對……極為欣賞，為……歡呼

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

35. babble on：喋喋不休地談論

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～），美國演員、編劇、電視制作人，曾出演伍迪·艾倫執(zhí)導的《怎樣都行》（Whatever Works）等影片。

39. herald [?her?ld] vt. 為……歡呼，歡迎