突击者

这部《突击者》算得上比较考观众耐心和理解力的，整部电影是部舞台剧，台词多，又含混不明，不构成剧情，只勾勒人物。
现存的剧情介绍通通是错的，这根本不是部警匪片，也不是关于“刑求”正义的。那个挨揍的“罪犯”，到戏尾也未证实的确是“罪犯”。整个故事描述的是人内心的黑暗，正义与邪恶只有一纸之隔。生命的黑暗孤独压抑，人难以承受之时，往往以犯罪的方式寻求发泄。
我同意有人的观点，实际上这是肖恩康纳利“最优秀的表演”，而不是那部《The Untouchables》。肖恩康纳利在他多数戏里都是本色演出，动作多于表情，没多少细致刻画内心的地方。但这部戏里，他的面部特写挺多，在特写镜头里，表现人物情绪的转变。电影开始不久，肖恩康纳利演的警察在野外先于众人找到那个失踪的女孩，他安抚着女孩，把小小的躯体从头到脚裹入自己那件大衣中，一脸满足愉悦，似乎高兴将之据为己有；紧接着周围搜索的警察赶到，肖恩康纳利的表情一下子就转成了错愕和敌意，生怕怀里的宝贝给人家抢走，好像他就是那个掳走女孩犯罪者，而不是营救者。看到这里，老奸巨滑的戏迷就能侦探到一些异样的气氛，接下去的情节，果然证实了预感。
肖恩康纳利在刑询室逼供的那段重头戏，情色味很浓。他的台词：“I'll read you, like an open book. I'll read you page by page, It's here. It's written in your face. Lines and shadows, marks on your immortal soul. I'll look into your eyes and I'll tell everything about you. I'm watching you, searching you, huh? My hands, well, they're all over you, reaching into your secrets. My fingers, probing. My eyes, feeling. I can tell when you sweat. I can tell when you shiver.”
这些话，是警察拷问罪犯的，更像变态杀人狂对他受害人的，也像狂热的情人说给一个不情愿的恋人的，随便你怎么看。
当然，也许是我想歪了。
电影想表达什么呢？中年危机？还是：犯罪，是一种人与人沟通途径，或者说，人与人的真正贴近与沟通，就是一种罪行？！
电影名offence，本意是罪行，谁的罪行呢？

Instead of reflecting on the Good and Evil, I’d rather call out two technical aspects of the film that appeal to me.
First, the cinematography: (1) the unsettling optical aperture effect of the beginning (suggesting police work---and Johnny’s existence---“in the eyes of the public”?). (2) The cold, damp ambient worthy of Antonioni (“Blow-Up”): that long, speechless observation of frenzied parents picking up schoolchildren. (3) Painterly quality: after Johnny is taken away, his wife sitting alone, against windows opening to a balcony above which the lead-grey sky is strangely illuminated with surreal, apocalyptical light. Worthy of Munch.
Second, the speech. Compare Baxter in interrogation and Johnny at home. Johnny’s talk with his wife: bitter, despairing, embattled, impotent, often cut short by the speaker’s own recognition of its futility, his speech is half Pinter and half Shakespeare. Baxter, on the other hand, is a very articulate Satan (no wonder Bannen got an Oscar). He’s clever, nonchapant, gleeful --in turn with vulgar innuendos and subtle sophism; just the sort a brute like Johnny would want to exterminate/ worship. Baxter is everything that Johnny is not, for he’s not shakled by residual humanity as Johnny has been.

Apart from the visual/literal accomplishments, Lumet’s “Offence” can be read as a Nietschien characterization of evil: “When you stare into an abyss for a long time, the abyss also stares into you”. One is still tempted to ask, however, what is the point of all these raw, nervy torments?