维特根斯坦

我很少看把电影看第二遍……但这部传记片实在是太有趣了。

对于大众来说为什么牛逼：
成本低，概念高。演员也都选得好
而导演Jarman也是很下功夫。当时几近失明的他，把维老他的人和他的思想都读透了。改写剧本时Jarman大胆想象，写成了这么一部轻松诙谐加自我调侃的同志哲人传记片。我就喜欢这种先锋的自我解读，而不是循规蹈矩走传统传记路线。


对于我个人来说为什么牛逼：
感情呈现的起乘转折的节奏把握得特别好。不乏感人的台词，尤其是结尾凯恩斯的那段独白比喻，听得心都融化了。
我和片中偏执地寻找『私人语言』维老有同感。时常在个人的孤独感中纠结与人交流时所遇到的困难。
他认为 解决这种孤独 尤其是哲人的孤独（brooding over its private experience） 的方式就是寻找公共语言
而完善这种语言的方式就是让所有人的逻辑体系都是理性的、一致的。
当有人对他做侮辱手势的时候，他开始意识到，人类的语言不可能完美。
他执着而天真 聪明而钻牛角尖 不爱都不行。

好吧其实是为了贴作业的，调研贾曼的两部电影
中心论点在第一段。。关于电影中的同志题材和场景设置

Derek Jarman’s Personal Narrative—Exploring Ludwig Wittgenstein and Michelangelo Caravaggio’s Brilliance and Queer Identities


As one of the best-known British queer directors, Derek Jarman produced several unique biopics of talented men tortured by their repressed homosexuality. Notably, Jarman started his career in feature film by working with Ken Russell, a director who reinvented the artist biopic by “introducing startling fantasy sequences and ostentatious camera movements.” Jarman continued Russell’s revolt against conventional realist representation of historical figures. Also using biopics as a form of documentation, Jarman has sought to reenact experience and thereby reconstruct affective relations. He identifies with brilliant queer men who are often too radical for their times. By portraying queer figures, Jarman interprets art and philosophy as well as repressed emotions and loneliness of queer men. Even during the conservative periods, Jarman’s nuanced films carried many provocative themes that were not only political but also highly personal. Caravaggio (1986) and Wittgenstein (1993) exemplify these aspects of Jarman’s individualistic, subjective approach. Jarman admits to strongly identifying with Wittgenstein: “I have much of Ludwig in me. Not in my work, but in my life.” Jarman has also stated in interviews that his artistic dilemmas are similar to those experienced by Caravaggio. This research paper attempts to capture the richness of Jarman's personal relationship with these two figures by discussing both films’ use of mise-en-scene and their thematic concern with queer identity.
Jarman engages with the lives of Wittgenstein and Caravaggio by referencing and paying homage to their work on a theoretical level. A painter and former set designer, Jarman emphasizes the use of mise-en-scene as substitute for literal narrative. In Jarman's films, staging and visual imagery are the most important qualities, while “narrative takes second place". While the lack of emphasis on logical narrative granted him more space to experiment, viewers with little knowledge of the characters are often confused. Jarman concentrates on constructing the plot around Caravaggio's paintings rather than his life and times. Critics have pointed out the absence of a clear narrative in Caravaggio. The characters and their relations to Caravaggio are unclear and sometimes misleading. Many supporting characters do not have presence in the plot that was fully distinct from their respective paintings. Yet Jarman believed he had to establish a unique perspective in order to capture Caravaggio’s dramatic “Hollywood template” life in a 90-minute film without resorting to clichés. Narrative ambiguity allows Jarman to “recreate many details of [his] life and, bridging the gap of centuries and cultures, to exchange a camera with a brush.” He interweaves the paintings with the plot with a painstakingly reworked script that involved 16 rewrites, as well as magnificent tableaux vivant production sets. Jarman focuses on Caravaggio’s emotions, sexuality, dreams and events surrounding the creation of his paintings, redefining the genre of the artist biopic. The paintings drive the narrative, and the consciousness depicted is not that of independently conceived characters but that of the artist himself, Jarman-Caravaggio.
As a lifelong painter, Jarman appreciates the narrative power of mise-en-scene and highlights it in the set designs for both films. Jarman is fascinated by Caravaggio’s use of chiaroscuro to create the illusion of depth. He praised Caravaggio for inventing cinematic light and the noir style shadowed backgrounds. Jarman pays homage to this technique through tightly controlled lighting effects. The tone and shade of the walls and skin color convey more about the scene than the script. In most scenes, Jarman meticulously replicates Caravaggio’s light sources, which usually come from the left and therefore elicits stronger responses from the viewers. Jarman attempts to show that the chiaroscuro is effective to capture intense emotions not only on canvas but also in film. He pays homage to Caravaggio by employing light and emphasizes the timelessness of classic art techniques.
While Jarman painted cinema like the artist Caravaggio, he also philosophized it, as expressed in the mise-en-scene of Wittgenstein. Jarman portrays Wittgenstein’s general estrangement from a painfully foreign world as a result of both his abstract philosophy and his difficulties accepting his sexuality. Jarman shows a world that appears absurd from Wittgenstein’s perspective: the highly stylized acting and flamboyant costumes of other characters contrast with Wittgenstein’s naturalistic acting and gray tweed jacket. Wittgenstein questions himself throughout the film: “How can I be a logician before I am a human being? The most important thing is to settle accounts with myself!” He travels across Europe, fighting in the Great War, teaching in a rural school, and escaping to Ireland or Norway to familiarize himself with the strange world, yet its meaning is still “problematic.” Wittgenstein, troubled by his sexuality, also wished to live an ethical life guided by strict logic. Yet this longing for perfection is disrupted by the messiness of life and the fickleness of passions.
Jarman places symbolic visuals in the biopic, which remind sophisticated audiences of “Wittgenstein’s epigrammatic style” of writing. Lady Ottoline paints Bertrand Russell on canvas as a red monochrome. When he wrote the script, Jarman also tried to understand Wittgenstein’s personal life by reading his books. Remarks on Colour provided him with cinematic context to relate to Wittgenstein’s ideas: “Remarks on Colour was a path for me back to the Tractatus [Logico-Philosophicus].” Furthermore, Jarman’s schematic use of color contrasts between the repression of private feelings and the expression of straightforward colors. "The black annihilates the decorative and concentrates so my characters shine in it like red dwarfs—and green giants. Yellow lines and blue stars”, Jarman references the schematic use of colors in Wittgenstein poetically. Jarman later wrote an entire book—Chroma— to show how colors are solely products of human interaction. In Wittgenstein’s words: “I think that it is worthless and of no use whatsoever for the understanding of painting to speak of the characteristics of the individual colours.” Through referencing Wittgenstein’s ideas on colors in the mise-en-scene as well as script text, Jarman pays homage to the philosopher. Jarman also successfully uses film medium to explore abstract theories and overcomes limitations of language.
Jarman engages with Wittgenstein and Caravaggio not only on a theoretical level but also reads into their personal struggles with homosexuality. Similar to abstract theories, Jarman’s Wittgenstein believed that homosexuality is an area that restricts language as a mode of expression. “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent,” Wittgenstein once wrote. In Jarman’s dialogue and cinematography, Wittgenstein's struggles to come to terms with his own philosophical ideas were inseparable from his attitude towards his sexuality. In one scene, three cyclists dressed in anachronistic jumpsuits abuse him with homophobic slurs and the insulting V-sign. Wittgenstein is flabbergasted and realizes there is no “logical structure” in the V-sign – the main argument of his first book. He plans to commit suicide but then rethinks his entire philosophy of language, completing his magnum opus Philosophical Investigations. Wittgenstein is confused by the logic of a curse, but Jarman sets the scene to suggest that Wittgenstein is confounded by homophobia. Jarman explains that Wittgenstein found a black hole in the logic, “for [the picture of Queer] there was no language.” Later, Bertrand Russell is infuriated after Wittgenstein convinces his student Johnny to work and drives him away from philosophy. Russell criticizes Wittgenstein for idealizing the common folk and “infecting too many young men” with his thought experiments. Jarman hints at Wittgenstein’s homosexual relationships with students through these double entendres. Wittgenstein's euphemisms, too, reflect his embarrassment concerning these relationships: He has “known” Johnny three times. Following this scene, Jarman places the mentally tormented Wittgenstein in a suspended cage. Wittgenstein ponders upon his relationships with his university and exclaims painfully: “Philosophy is the sickness of the mind. I mustn’t infect too many young men… living in a world where such a love is illegal and trying to live openly and honestly is a complete contradiction.” John Maynard Keynes, also clearly homosexual in the film, consoles Wittgenstein: “If you’d just allow yourself to be a little more sinful, you’d stand a chance of salvation.” Both Wittgenstein’s sexuality and philosophy alienates him from the real world. Jarman portrays a Wittgenstein who finds it difficult to distinguish between his philosophy and sexual passions.
Similarly, Jarman regards Caravaggio as the most homosexual of painters, based on his paintings rather than his biography. Jarman notes that Caravaggio paints his own face staring from the back of the crowd in The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew. He hypothesizes that “[Caravaggio] gazes wistfully at the hero slaying the saint. It is a look no one can understand unless he has stood till 5 a.m. in a gay bar hoping to be fucked by that hero. The gaze of the passive homosexual at the object of his desire, he waits to be chosen, he cannot make the choice”. Jarman reads Caravaggio's paintings for insights into his psychology and romantic relationships, and places these readings into his film. Caravaggio suffers creative drought while painting The Martyrdom. He encounters the attractive, masculine yet poor Ranuccio and selects him as a model. Ranuccio, the object of desire, inspires Caravaggio to finish the painting. Caravaggio showers him with gold coins in a suggestive fashion and also delivers one of the coins mouth to mouth. At the final stage, Caravaggio gazes intensely at Ranuccio still posed as the Martyr, forming a tableau vivant of the painting. His role as the artist desiring for Caravaggio and man yearning for St. Matthew in the painting is blurred. Caravaggio says in a voiceover, “I will seek him, whom my soul loves. I sought him, but found him not.” Jarman depicts Caravaggio as having romantic yet passive sentiments for the undesirable and shows this through ingenious mise-en-scene.
Elsewhere, Jarman portrays Caravaggio’s passivity as a product of the hypocrisy of the Roman Catholic establishment’s homophobia. He reads in the same painting “pernicious self-hatred [homosexuals] fostered among themselves… which is the key to Caravaggio’s life and destruction—it’s written all over the painting.” Jarman also identifies many of Caravaggio’s paintings as claustrophobic. Believing that there is a connection between Caravaggio’s style and his state of mind, Jarman films all of the scenes in studio with claustrophobic environments to suggest Caravaggio’s suffocation in a homophobic society. There is only one exterior scene in Caravaggio, in which Ranuccio and Lena are engaging in heterosexual foreplay. The restriction of space is emphasized as Caravaggio recounts the open spaces of the ocean or grasslands on his deathbed, yet the film includes not a single shot of the sky.
In Wittgenstein, Jarman further restricts the mise-en-scene space and uses nothing but a black background. Yet Wittgenstein does not experience the engulfing black as simply a form of claustrophobia. By using the black drape, Jarman was not only able to film the documentary on a minimal budget, but could also suggest that “the historicising attitude to biopic is totally irrelevant.” Jarman, who sought to make a philosophical film, said that “to redefine film, like language, needs a leap—in this case, the black drapes [defy] the narrative without junking it”. Time, space, and color are happening, juxtaposing an eternal and persistent void. Wittgenstein’s biographer Ray Monk lauded this approach in a review, saying that the black background embodies Wittgenstein’s “ahistorical, existential style of philosophizing and creates the entirely apposite impression that this is a story that is happening, not in any particular place, but rather in somebody’s—Wittgenstein’s—mind.” Eventually, on his deathbed, as Wittgenstein accepts his queer desires in an imperfect world, the child version of him rises out of the black drapes and flies up to the sky (a backdrop) on aeronautic wings. Wittgenstein leaves the alienating world that has been portrayed thus far in the film.
Jarmanesque props are also an important mise-en-scene element. Jarman references Leonardo da Vinci’s engineering drawings by giving Wittgenstein kite wings and having him hold lawn sprinklers in his hands. The sprinklers' jets of water resemble the spinning propellers of a plane. Jarman’s anachronistic choice of props was inspired by the props in Caravaggio’s paintings. In Penitent Magdelane, only the pearls and bottle of perfume indicate that the subject is Mary Magdalene. Her identity is otherwise unclear because the model is a prostitute dressed in 16th century clothing. Caravaggio’s mix of historical and contemporary objects suggests a connection between the historical subject and the viewer. Like the props in Caravaggio’s paintings, those in Jarman’s films suggest that history exists within the present and is embodied by contemporary models and objects. In one scene of Caravaggio, the aristocratic banker pompously fiddles with an electronic calculator that shows the timeless relationship between art and commerce. The vicious art critic attacks Caravaggio’s paintings and sexuality using a typewriter, perhaps referring to contemporary Tories that attacked Jarman personally in Sunday Times. The pope jeers at Caravaggio with a modern term “you little bugger” when he claims that art only helps the status quo. Through anachronistic props, Jarman shows the timelessness of artists’ tension with the establishment.
Jarman engages with Caravaggio and Wittgenstein’s theoretical ideas as well as personal dilemmas to show that they are not only brilliant but also troubled by their queer sexuality. Equipped with mise-en-scene elements such as lighting techniques, schematic colors and anachronistic props incorporated in his meticulously written script, Jarman directed nuanced films such as Wittegenstein and Caravaggio that explore many provocative themes during conservative eras. As an artist, Jarman feels responsible to show those details and nuances that cannot yet be fitted into a theoretically coherent framework, where the “attrition between private and public worlds” is felt strongest. Jarman used cinema “to express his beliefs, his dreams, his emotions, his ideologies, his needs. That is the difference between the artist and the technician who both make films.” Combining extraordinary vision, intellect and effort, he effectively conveyed his personal and theoretical readings of the two figures’ queer identities in Caravaggio and Wittgenstein.
 


Bibliography
Beristain, Gabriel. Caravaggio (DVD audio commentary). Dir. Derek Jarman. Cinevista, 1986. DVD. Zeitgeist Films. 2008.
Clark, James. "Jarman's Wittgenstein." Jim's Reviews. http://jclarkmedia.com/jarman/jarman10.html (accessed December 5, 2010).
Ellis, Jim. Derek Jarman's Angelic Conversations. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.
Fox, Sharon. A perceptual basis for the lighting of Caravaggio's faces. Journal of Vision. August 1, 2004 vol. 4 no. 8 article 215. <http://www.journalofvision.org/content/4/8/215.abstract>
Jarman, Derek. Caravaggio. Thames and Hudson, London, 1986. 44.
Jarman, Derek. Dancing Ledge. Quartet Books, London, 1984.
Jarman, Derek. "This is Not a Film of Ludwig Wittgenstein." In Wittgenstein: the Terry Eagleton script, the Derek Jarman film. London: British Film Institute, 1993. 63-67.
Jarman, Derek, and Roger Wollen. Derek Jarman: a portrait. London: Thames And Hudson, 1996.
Monk, Ray. ‘Between Earth and Ice: Derek Jarman’s Film of the life of Wittgenstein’. In The Times Literary Supplement, 19 March 1993.
Nash, Mark. 'Innocence and of Experience,' Afterimage 12, Autumn 1985. 30.
Pencak, William. “Caravaggio and the Italian Renaissance” and “Wittgenstein: The Grey Flame and the Early Twentieth Century.” In The films of Derek Jarman. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland & Co., 2002. 70-84, 108-119.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. Remarks on Colour. Oxford: Blackwell, 1977.
Wymer, Rowland. Derek Jarman. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2005.
 
Appendix
Appendix 1: Michelangelo Caravaggio’s The Martyrdom of Saint Matthew.
 
Appendix 2: Wittgenstein, the da Vinci design, and sprinklers. Wittgenstein

Appendix 3: Caravaggio’s Penitent Magdelane

豆瓣Appendix 4：写着两部片儿的起因

最近又有新的电影paper要写 8-10p 随便什么topic都行
我苦思冥想数日 从伍迪艾伦到wes anderson，从青年文化想到记者类电影，都因为各种原因被我自己一一否决。（太平庸 太日常 被说烂了 我已经知道太多有偏见的，etc）（选research电影难度在于，又要喜欢研究对象，又不能太喜欢——否则你没办法置身于高处去评判！！比如wes anderson……）

昨天随意浏览豆瓣电影的时候看到以前打5星的《维特根斯坦因》 正好里面很多我没理解的概念 同时觉得很牛逼 于是come up with the rough thesis：When Jarman narrates Ludwig Wittgenstein's life in the film, how does is the director incorporating the philosopher’s ideas on language?

随后让季先生帮我借了N本关于维叔叔和他理论的书……爽～～


今天去找老师的时候 他听到我选择这部电影时就笑出来了
“我为什么笑啊，其实我应该为你高兴才对嘛，只不过我是太久以前看的了（刚出的时候老师就看了……），所以觉得又惊又喜！”持续表达自己的惊讶，“What a surprising choice！You have an interest in philosophy？” 他没想到我对哲学还有兴趣

我解释了一番thesis，老师又问我为什么想处这个的 我说 因为一直觉得哲人的思想与他们的真实生活之间的联系很微妙。老师质问，什么是‘真实’？我说，想法与生活态度毕竟还是两回事。 他说，嗯确实，随即开始自言自语“电影能体现出image's immediacy”什么的，我也顺手记下来了

建议：1 don't try to become a master on wittgenstein's ideas. 很多人花一辈子都没整明白
2 focus on the text itself, don't be too absorbed with w's thoughts
说不定要拿这个作为主体，与《蓝》、《Jubilee》的风格做一些联系（“Jubilee is a very accessible film。你对朋克文化感兴趣吗？里面有所涉及”“嗯，有的”）（我居然说得这么淡定）
他也非常喜欢Jarman，把他与queer vision联系起来，因为同性恋男导们其实都一种独特的表达方式，虽然往往与同性恋这个主题不是很相关

“You are such an unusual student！在我看来，你对抽象的想法这么感兴趣，你以后应该很喜欢电影理论的。可惜啊～你不在我下学期的queer vision课上～我们要讨论帕索里尼啊～以及他对天主教的各种奇怪见解”
“帕索里尼，是拍索多玛的对吧？”
“对”
“嗯。。确实会很有意思呢。话说你看戏剧作品《马拉/萨德》了吗？”
“没有！我本应该去看的！悔恨啊！我消息太闭塞了；以后一定要找到获取这些信息的渠道！”
 

总之跟电影老师每次谈话都很欢乐很活跃～～虽然我们两个人都有点shy～

就像维特根斯坦自己说的：“电影就像一个冲淋浴，把讲义冲走。”他喜欢看电影，讨厌研讨会。

我也可以说：“看一部歌剧形式的电影《维特根斯坦》比看他的著作有趣的多！”电影通常比较直观易懂。（另有一例是关于经济学家纳什的电影——《美丽心灵》，电影充满悬疑，帅哥美女，还很温情，但他博弈论应该不是那么好理解的。）

据说维特根斯坦是哲学界的爱因斯坦，没有几个人能理解他的思想，他却总被许多人津津乐道。他出生富裕，是罗素的学生，在战壕里写哲学著作，他是哲学家，同时也是工程师，他还是个gay。

他有个“洛克斯菲尔德”般富裕的家庭，爸爸是欧洲钢铁工业的巨头，妈妈是银行家的女儿。他的家教历史老师与希特勒是同一位。也许是某些“家族基因”在作怪（我猜的），他的两个同性恋哥哥都死于自杀，还有一个哥哥自愿参加战争失去了一只右手，成了独臂钢琴家，写过一本《左手钢琴协奏曲》。

据说维特根斯坦曾问一位老师，“我笨吗？不笨可以学哲学，笨则可以去当飞行员。”他师从罗素在剑桥学哲学，但他讨厌剑桥，称其为“吵吵闹闹的妓院”。于是一个人住在挪威一个小村庄的小木屋里，还声称“寂寞也是一种福气”。

他还去过乡下当小学教师。有时候他会发挥他工程师的才能，修好一些机械设备，令村民们惊叹不已。聪明的学生经常能感受到他温暖的目光，但他也会将头脑笨的学生打成重伤送进医院。他的脾气很暴躁，即使在剑桥和其他著名学者交流，没等对方说上几句，他就叫了起来：“哦，不，不。不是那样的……”，说上近半个小时，最后握着对方的手说：“我们刚才的谈话很有趣，谢谢。”然后转身离开。

回到剑桥，他受不了研讨，学生说开完会，就去看电影，他才答应。他喜欢西部片和音乐剧，通常坐在最前排，让自己淹没在电影的音像中。

他总是劝他的学生去从事体力劳动，他自己也极其想去苏联做个体力劳动者。当周围的学生不理解他甚至嘲笑他的怪异的时候，他怒气冲冲的说要去自杀。不过也有喜欢他的学生说：“他如上帝般英俊、纯洁，超凡脱俗。”

他是个gay，很多时候都陷于道德上的自责，虽然别人劝慰他说：“世界上没有什么比得到满足的身体更温暖了。”可他事后依旧不安、羞愧，反省和自责。

他死于生理上的疾病，死的时候，他说了一句原创的名言：“告诉他们，我度过了美好的一生！”他也有遗憾，他想写一本完全由笑话组成的哲学书，可他流下了眼泪：“悲哀的是我毫无幽默感。”

————————————————————————

第一次接触维特根斯坦，是在一次现代西方哲学课上，他的分析哲学还有语言学让人昏头转向，极其难理解。印象深刻的是，上课的老师把维的著作《逻辑哲学论》拿给班上的同学传阅，用罗素的话说“书太短，非常难懂，但很好。”那本近乎于用“数学”的方式写的书，让我们惊叹不已。

其次是上课的老师给我们看了维给他姐姐设计的房子的照片，简洁、净穆。叹为观止!

这不是一部适合消闲娱乐的电影。一切场景仿佛发生在话剧的舞台上，只有打下的灯光、简单的布景和道具。许多演员都穿着色彩鲜艳夸张的衣服、化着只有舞台剧才化的那么浓的妆。比起一部电影来，它还更像许多话剧场景的串连。它甚至不能说像个传统的话剧，许多场景夹带了干巴巴的哲学讨论，另一些则极其平淡，仿佛不过是个情节过渡，那些看来可算在讲故事的片断则当真尽职尽责，它们把一个简单的故事讲清楚了——如此而已。无论哪一种，背景都是黑沉沉的，灯光往往只照亮了人物的半边脸，于是这些场景如同一些从鲜亮的世界中切下来的小碎屑。

“the world is everything that is the case”那个扮演少年维特根斯坦的小男孩扛着一面如此写道的蓝色大旗走过。我承认我看不懂这句话。字幕则说：“实际上，世界就是由这些发生过的事构成的。”

我之前一直煞费苦心，想找出点哲学意义而无果，到了这里才忽然精神一振。

实际上，世界就是由这些发生过的事构成的。对于我们来说，所谓地球围着太阳转，或太阳围着地球转，是怎样被看见的？他的学生说他明白了。但是我并没有明白。我以为自己多少明白了一点的是所谓的“语言游戏”——以下也许是我在胡说八道，跟维特根斯坦没有关系——所谓的存在、世界及其它什么东西是由语言建构的，没有语言就没有世界。而当别人不能理解你的语言时，也就意味着你的世界，这个世界，这个由你的语言建造的世界，只有你一个人。

维特根斯坦抱着美好的愿望到乡下去教书，最后却以揪着学生的耳朵大发雷霆而告终。听不懂吗？听不懂我在说什么吗？数学！逻辑！他迷恋上共产主义理论，兴冲冲地申请到俄苏去，做一个体力劳动者，办事处的俄国小姐却告知他，他可以选择一个大学教席，至于体力劳动者，“俄国最不缺的就是没有经验的体力劳动者。”“为什么我一定得教书？”维特根斯坦问，整个舞台黑洞洞的，只有他和这位办事员小姐还有办公桌椅，俄国小姐不耐烦地站起身来，脱口而出一大串的俄语，他愣了，她在说什么？她用她的语言在说什么？“下一位。”她突然说了一句他能听懂的话，可这是最后一句了。

“你明白我说的吗？”他问他的同性恋情人乔尼，追随他的学生之一。整部片子唯一一处像是传统电影的处理手法就在这里——镜头闪回他对着顽冥无知的学童绝望的吼叫。“哲学的核心是……被称为在烦恼个人经历的、孤独的人的一种灵魂的图式。……我们之所以是我们，是因为我们分享共同的语言，和生活方式。”……“你明白我说的吗？”他抓住乔尼的手臂，像是无助的，转向他。那英俊的青年人，望着和他同床共枕的、年长的老师，微笑了，点点头，更紧地抱住老师。

……世界就是由这些发生过的事构成的。一个常人看来成员都很奇怪的家庭，童年时受过的灌输性的教育，完全不同于想像、“简直像个妓院”的大学生活，乡村教师、军人、教授席位……少数朋友、学生、情人……如此活过的一个人，维特根斯坦，尽他整个生命所能，想把这些拼凑起来，想找到一个完美得像光滑的冰面一样的世界。

“哲学只是精神病的一种。”

他被自己关进了笼子，他找不出答案，哲学吸引不了多少年轻人，漆黑的宇宙中，没有人能理解他的语言，他的世界——他为找到一个完美的世界而做的痛苦的努力。我想，他的世界是由发生在他身上的事建构的，是仅仅由那些五彩的碎屑拼凑成的，——而一个完美的理论是永不可得的。

有个年轻人创造了一个完美的世界，当他想在这个世界行走第一步时，却忘了光滑无疵的冰面没有摩擦力，年轻人刚迈一步，就向后摔倒在地，哭了起来。

这像个童话。可是我确乎觉得，有时童话才是世界的真相。

当这个年轻人变成了老人，他知道了这个世界是有着很多缺陷的，可是他仍然怀念内心那完美无暇的世界，于是他就在这两个世界之间徘徊，不能安顿下来。

这是当年老的维特根斯坦临终时，影片所讲述的一个故事。那之前，他仍想去苏联，可是他的朋友劝阻了他。“我们都喜爱你。”朋友最后总结说。维特根斯坦却选择离开人群隐居起来，最后得了绝症，他曾爱过的青年人找到他。“是你呀，”维特根斯坦说，“你终于来了。”……“我和您一起回剑桥去。”那青年望着他说，维特根斯坦把眼睛转向远处，然后，渐渐地，听到遥远的潮水涨落的声音。

我不了解维特根斯坦，甚至百度知道都没在我脑子里留下更有用的信息。但是这部电影，假如它还算可靠，令我深深觉得，维特根斯坦是一个孤独的人。他像我们每个人一样，被抛到一个荒唐奇异的世界上来，不可理解的事每天都在上演。他紧紧地抓住生命中那些他感到了的碎屑，用他的知识和智力，还有上帝给予他的时间，穷尽心血在全然的黑暗中寻找一片小小的亮光，好让他能够立在上面。最后，他在黑暗中死去了，留下我们观看这些碎片，亮光的痕迹，还有我们自己所拥有的未知，同样是从一个肮脏的全无定形的大地上捡拾起来的无名之物。我不敢说我“认识”或“知道”维特根斯坦，因为这个名字也不过是诸多语言游戏中的一小块石子。但我以为，我看到了一个孤独的人，在一个无穷尽的荒凉的宇宙中，他的努力何其渺小而可笑，甚至不能多少减少一点他的孤独；然而他是可敬的、可爱的以至高贵的，他有一颗真诚的心，他想用它来看到这个注定没有答案的世界。我想这也就是一个“人”本来该有的样子了。

PS
非要打个分，那就打个“推荐”吧，但是我们每个人的眼睛都是不一样的。所以你也会找到你的维特根斯坦的。

吐槽及其他请见
http://www.douban.com/note/37090335/

    曾经有个年轻人，他想把世界简化到纯粹的逻辑里。因为他非常聪明，也确实做到了。他在完成时，回首看着、欣赏着。一个非常美丽，摒除了不完美和不确定的新世界，象闪耀的冰面无边无际的延伸到天边。那个聪明的年轻人环视他所创造的世界，决定探索它。可是当他向前迈出第一步，立即摔倒了。你看，他忘了摩擦力。冰面平坦光滑，洁净无瑕，但是人无法在上面行走。聪明的年轻人坐在那里不禁流下心碎的眼泪。
　　
　　当他成长为一个智慧的老人时，他开始理解粗糙和混沌并不是缺陷，世界就是因此而运转。他想奔跑舞蹈，顿时语言失去光泽，模糊不清；世界支离破碎，散落一地。智慧的老人知道这就是事物的本来面目。但在他的内心依然怀念着那纯净的世界，那里的一切闪耀着纯粹的光芒。虽然他甚至已经日渐喜欢那坑坑洼洼的地面，但无法让自己在那里安顿下来。现在他在地面和冰面之间徘徊，哪里都不是他的归宿。这是他所有悲痛的来由。
　　
　　
　　---Derek Jarman <Wittgenstein>

似乎哲学家都在否定自己的研究成果,就如他的恩师罗素否定自己多年心血企图创立完整体系的中心一元论一样,鸟瞰他们的一生就像在画圈中前进,哲学没有实验基础,所以把各个学说合并之后，我们似乎又回到了这个平淡的世界。