文學／影像的合謀與拮抗―論關錦鵬《紅玫瑰•白玫瑰》、李安《色•戒》和張愛玲原文本的多重互涉

關錦鵬《紅玫瑰•白玫瑰》和李安《色•戒》兩部改編自張愛小說的電影風格迥異，然有多處交集：片名都具二元相對的辯證關係，同樣強化了原著的時代背景、情慾關係和女性意識，並挪用拼貼作者其他原文本。《紅玫瑰•白玫瑰》融會張愛玲多部散文、電影和小說，豐富原著的肌理，在套用和重組間注入新解，不僅對張愛玲作品做出更全面的觀照和解讀，且深掘原文本未言明的內核，在貌似忠於原著的表面形式下，藉挪用和轉化悄悄移位，並以具象化的影像安排，暗喻人物間對照與滲透關係。《色•戒》將張愛玲身世和情感融入電影，角色塑造以真情替代自戀，導演態度以同情取代冷觀，在情節發展的關鍵時刻挪移張愛玲及胡蘭成作品，電影融會張看的眼光，也融入李安對時代的召喚，浩瀚深闊的歷史感與奇詭豔異的情慾關係，迥異於原著隔閡淡漠的處理手法，卻在恍然若夢的人生況味上殊途同歸。兩部電影呈現兩種不同的改編模式，但都回過頭來豐富了原文本。

關鍵字

張愛玲；關錦鵬；李安；紅玫瑰•白玫瑰；色•戒

並列摘要

Based on Eileen Chang's novels, Stanley Kwan's film Red Rose White Rose and Ang Lee's film Lust, Caution represent very different styles while sharing many parallels. First of all, both films are similar in employing titles that consist of two dialectical opponents. Second, emphasizing on the historical background, the two directors try to explore the erotic relationships and feminine consciousness implicit in Chang's original texts. Finally, some related works of Chang's are incorporated into these films. In Red Rose White Rose, Kwan's innovation is shown in blending Chang's other prose, fictions, and an existing movie, so that the story is interestingly enriched. Such transplantation and rearrangement not only provides a new interpretation, but also uncovers Chang's insight in a deeper manner. This produces an amazing effect that what is shown on the screen seems to be coming from the hypotext, but in reality results from a metaphorical transformation of the relationship between characters. In Lust, Caution, Lee even draws from Chang's personal life, particularly her love affair, and hence creates self-revealing, rather than self-indulgent characters. In a subtle reconstruction of the historical background, Lee also injects much compassion into characters. As a result, one can detach Chang's and Lan-Cheng Hu's works at some key scenes. Originally, Chang's text is relatively indifferent about the outside world. Lee changes it into a passionate movie which includes bizarre but beautiful sex scenes. Such magic transformation, however, enables Lee to return to Chang's original spirit. This paper sees its major task in showing how both films respectively acquire a new way in visualizing Chang's works, and to what extent the efforts of the two directors should be appreciated.