Somewhere in the remote region, the war ends. In the midst of ruined cities and houses in the streets, in rural hamlets, everywhere where people still live, are children who have lost their homes and parents. Abandoned, hungry, and in rags, defenseless and humiliated, they wander through the world. Hunger drives them. Little streams of orphans merge into a river which rushes forward and submerges everything in its path. The children do not know any feeling; they know only the world of their enemies. They fight, steal, struggle for a mouthful of food, and violence is merely a means to get it. A gang led by Cahoun finds a refuge in an abandoned castle and encounters an old composer who has voluntarily retired into solitude from a world of hatred, treason, and crime. How can they find a common ground, how can they become mutual friends? The castle becomes their hiding place but possibly it will also be their first home which they may organize and must defend. But even for this, the price will be very high.
To this simple story, the journalist, writer, poet, scriptwriter, movie director, and film theoretician Béla Balázs applied many years of experience. He and the director Géza Radványi created a work which opened a new postwar chapter in Hungarian film. Surprisingly, this film has not lost any of its impact over the years, especially on a profound philosophical level. That is to say, it is not merely a movie about war; it is not important in what location and in what period of time it takes place. It is a story outside of time about the joyless fate of children who pay dearly for the cruel war games of adults.
At the time it was premiered, the movie was enthusiastically received by the critics. The main roles were taken by streetwise boys of a children's group who created their roles improvisationally in close contact with a few professional actors, and in the children's acting their own fresh experience of war's turmoil appears to be reflected. At the same time, their performance fits admirably into the mosaic of a very complex movie language. Balázs's influence revealed itself, above all, in the introductory sequences: an air raid on an amusement park, seen in a montage of dramatic situations evoking the last spasms of war, where, undoubtedly, we discern the influence of classical Soviet cinematography. Shooting, the boy's escape, the locomotive's wheels, the shadows of soldiers with submachine guns, the sound of a whistle—the images are linked together in abrupt sequences in which varying shots and expressive sharp sounds are emphasized. A perfectly planned screenplay avoided all elements of sentimentality, time-worn stereotypes of wronged children, romanticism and cheap simplification. The authors succeeded in bridging the perilous dramatic abyss of the metamorphosis of a children's community. Their telling of the story (the scene of pillaging, the assault on the castle, etc) independently introduced some neorealist elements which, at that time, were being propagated in Italy by De Sica, Rossellini, and other film artists. The rebukes of contemporary critics, who called attention to "formalism for its own sake" have been forgotten. The masterly art of cameraman Barnabás Hegyi gives vitality to the poetic images. His angle shots of the children, his composition of scenes in the castle interior, are a living document of the times, and underline the atmosphere and the characters of the protagonists. The success of the picture was also enhanced by the musical art of composer Dénes Buday who, in tense situations, inserted the theme of the Marseilaise into the movie's structure, as a motive of community unification, as an expression of friendship and the possibility of understanding.
Valahol Europaban is the first significant postwar Hungarian film. It originated in a relaxed atmosphere, replete with joy and euphoria, and it includes these elements in order to demonstrate the strength of humanism, tolerance, and friendship. It represents a general condemnation of war anywhere in the world, in any form.
非常优秀的电影，意味深长举重若轻，探讨的是很深刻的话题，可是出口是一本鱼谱。现在不是讨论谁该拍出这个电影的时候，我们距离这个已经越来越遥远了，现在是我们应该如何首先对自己以及现有的文化进行反思的问题。文化是脆弱的，自然是强大的，在这之间我们如何取舍，片子并没有给出一个答案，但是已经足够好看。薛景求演技返璞归真，表现真是太好了。
黑白的影像增强了电影感，后半段的时间跳跃又狠狠地削弱了电影感，整体还是比较娴熟的韩国电影工业套路。从程朱理学到认识论的觉醒，但是扯到天主教是有点离谱了。且前半段谈认识论，后半段的发展又回到了对程朱理学的旧社会批判上。结构上为了故事戏剧性，在主题的发展上做了奇怪的颠倒。是有点对不起《兹山鱼谱》的标题，最后偏离了认识论该有的启发意义，让一部本该如《天演论》般拨云见雾的专注，成了一曲默默的挽歌，格局小了。
想到梁漱溟和其他近代东亚开明之士，相似的儒学浸润的东亚人文心态，在西学东渐的冲突交融下，怎样坚守自我精神阵地，怎样不惧两股势力的拉扯而孑然一身呢。「我由性理之学接受了天主学，而国家却不能容纳一个渺小的我。」在天主教和儒教同为政治的砝码时，选择脱离政治漩涡的中心，记录下海鱼、海虫、海鸟与海兽，联想到许多经历迫害的文人的生涯后期（如沈从文写作《中国古代服饰研究》），大起与大落，出世与入世。虽然满身污秽，但海阔凭鱼跃，黑山也是慈山。把东亚儒教文化用影像诠释最到位的，还是韩国。（薛景求太适合这样落魄但风骨依然的文人墨客了了
正直的学术是从茫茫无迹的大海里写出鱼谱。
之前看到有评论说很可惜，这剧本可以国内拍的，看完觉得纯属放屁，这内核是大陆不可能拍出来且上映的
古代文人被贬黜的生活，科技进步对封建生活的冲击，儒学思想与自由主义的碰撞，学什么与为何而学的思考，以鱼寓人生，看似云淡风轻，实则是师徒两人理想与信仰覆灭又重建的过程，丁若铨在写书中死去，昌大则看清官场现实后重回黑山，也是另一种圆满。黑白质感的摄影挺合全片的气质，但结尾的那几段回忆反而有点掉价，韩国人对诗还自带解释，也削弱了诗本身的韵味。8.1
「牛逼」二字我已经说累了，前半段告诉我们，知识改变命运，后半段告诉我们，知识改变个屁！嘴上的主义，心里的生意，在大自然的智慧面前，人类是如此的丑陋。
淡淡的讲述，看着很舒服，如同在海边吹着海风晒月光。
“兹”字的本字是“玆” 由两个“玄”字组成 代表黑色 这也是电影里丁若铨认为黑山不吉遂改为兹山的原因 没球用的冷知识+1
总有评论的说这类电影应该中国自己拍，为什么韩国和日本拍的更好。我觉得跟大学所教和社会形态有关系。韩国喜欢并擅长培养国际大导演，片场里导演最大而不是中国式的投资最大，明星也是演技为佳而不是流量为好。导演没深度，读书少，想法少，自然拍不出好东西。但是就像足球一样，不是换一批人就能走进世界杯了一样。值得庆幸的是，观众雪亮的眼睛能分辨是非，豆瓣非流量之地，烂片在这里经不起打磨。希望越来越多的人支持新电影、新概念，少翻牌、少续集，不是演员料的请去参加综艺，不要影响电影之路
东亚古装剧的天花板，看到几句诗句和劝导都觉得莫名感动，思想的力量是多么重要，有的人去政局里搅弄风云，有的人则退于江湖仰望星空，任何时代都有理想主义，我们不一定都要主动去让时代碾碎。薛景求就不说了，卞约汉的表演真是令人叹服。
3.5。前半部分挺好，后半部分太明显开始讲道理。最怕韩国电影这种沉重的气息。3.5给了四星而不是三星，因为第一次知道有《兹山鱼谱》这个东西，了不起的来历。这位作者想必会是东坡的神交之友
黑山成了兹山，海胆里飞出蓝色的鸟，出世入世的师徒就像污泥里的白鹤，捕鱼作诗水墨映趣，又留下对大道恒久的追问。三星半，鞭策华语片不无道理。
或许导演也是某种意义上的丁若铨，感谢他拍出这么一部纯粹历史传记电影
1、最喜岛内的闲暇时光，怡然自得，自由洒脱，流放不是惩罚是新生；2、师徒互补，一冲一淡，出世入世，秉性一致，殊途同归；3、谁能不想起那个“一蓑烟雨任平生”的东坡先生？田野乡间有趣事，污泥山中出贤人。
比“民为贵，社稷次之，君为轻”的民本思想更深刻的从民众中来、到民众中去。学以致用，学为民所用，心委您所系，不是鱼水情，只因在鲤鱼跳龙门前我就是水。
昌大说:若不能按照所学的来活，
有人却天生乐得跻身同流如鳝鱼入污泥。
哦它又双叒叕传说中的水墨电影噶~~~你咋就知道没有龙王呢？SB拍个素媛2难道不更香吗？
剧情无感，说教就更没意思。卞约汉水下那一段最好看。
Copyright © 2015-2023 All Rights Reserved
