捕鼠者

《捕鼠者》电影剧照。

电影的开场镜头是一片若隐若现的白色。而后，白色的窗框勾勒出寒冷的乳白色天空。白色的帷幔从上面垂下，包裹了一个正在旋转着的男孩的头顶，帷幔的花边以无声地慢动作扭曲着。外面孩子们的笑声加剧了他的旋转。白袍遮住了他闭着的眼睛，就像新娘的面纱或洗礼帽一样。他似乎又是在水下旋转，尽管阳光已经照亮了他的头顶。屏幕外一只手的敲击结束了他苦行僧人式的白日梦。“看在上帝的份上，看看我的窗帘，”一位30多岁的女人说道。在荧幕的右上角，“捕鼠者”（Ratcatcher）以黑色小字体出现了。薄纱也开始以正常的速度徐徐展开。

苏格兰女性导演琳恩·拉姆塞（Lynne Ramsay，1969）1999年的处女作就是以这样的方式打开，这部电影可以说是20世纪描绘贫困儿童影响最为深远的杰作之一。被帘子遮住的男孩名叫瑞安·奎因（Ryan Quinn，由托马斯·麦克塔格特饰演），他只在银幕上出现了五分钟，之后就在他和他单身母亲杰基·奎因（Jackie Quinn）居住的公共住房外的运河里溺水身亡。故事发生于1973年，在格拉斯哥的一次“清洁工罢工”（dustmen strikes）运动中，垃圾堆积了好几个月，直到最后陆军坦克开过来清理。《捕鼠者》（Ratcatcher）是一部非常罕见的反映贫困的电影，它并没有丝毫的感伤，也没有短暂的煽情。拉姆塞用丰富的图像向童年致敬，让我们在一个充斥着害虫的世界中，得以诗意地瞥见纯真无邪的欢乐与残酷。

《捕鼠者》（Ratcatcher，1999）4K修复版电影海报，导演：琳恩·拉姆塞，片长：1小时34分钟。

由非传统演员扮演的“捕鼠者”的孩子们是本片的关键所在。我们通过他们的眼睛、耳朵和指尖感知到他们与被污染的社区的紧密联系。我们观察到政府对他们住房项目的忽视：楼梯间的油漆剥落，老鼠从地板上爬出来，垃圾袋像黑色、破裂的恶性细胞一样繁殖。而与此同时，地面上粉笔画出的游戏格子照亮了人行道，足球在破旧的鞋子之间滚动，一只脚下的老鼠得到了短暂的友好对待 —— 一块奶酪。一位小女孩把晾衣绳变成了惊险刺激的秋千，在垃圾袋宝座上吃着冰淇淋甜筒。捉老鼠成了五岁以上任何人的日常运动。但《捕鼠者》并没有让我们对这些孩子或他们饱受困境的父母之遭遇感到震撼或怜悯，而是仿佛诉求我们要正视每一个生命的尊严和复杂性，无论它是多么脆弱，多么看似堕落；我们被恳求去见证和珍惜那些凄凉中的美丽。

虽然瑞安的死一直萦绕在叙事当中，但情节在场景安排和人物深度方面却居于次要地位。12岁的主人公詹姆斯·吉莱斯皮（James Gillespie，由威廉·伊迪饰演）是一个敏锐、安静、偶尔也会吵闹的孩子。当瑞安掉入水里时，他是怎么知道他的朋友永远无法上岸？当他的朋友没有跟着他回家时，他为什么决定不回头看看呢？据推测，这些孩子，或者他们的父母都没有学过游泳。这条运河既是一个玩耍的地点，也是一个不合时宜的坟墓，这是永远存在着贫穷危险的一个转喻。

《捕鼠者》电影剧照。

当然，看似简单，甚至是不可避免的事情并非如此。决策是由那些负责人做出的，他们很少（如果有的话）出现在屏幕上。吉莱斯皮一家和许多房客一样，无精打采地希望有一天他们能被安置在一个有现代化厕所和自来水的新公寓里。与此同时，孩子们被训练要对偶尔出现在门口的社会工作者撒谎；在詹姆斯和他的两个妹妹的故事中，母亲（曼迪·马修斯饰）和父亲（汤米·弗拉纳根饰）总是“外出”—— 他们在商店，在酒吧，在任何地方，但从来没有一份稳定的工作。

《捕鼠者》电影剧照。

父亲长期酗酒，母亲尽她最大的努力维持家里的秩序。詹姆斯的妹妹安-玛丽（Ann-Marie，由导演的女儿小琳恩·拉姆塞饰）是一位心直口快且开朗的告密者。一群四处游荡的十几岁男孩折磨着詹姆斯和他的伙伴玛格丽特-安妮（莉安·马伦饰），后者最终出于乏味和恐惧对这群人进行了性服务。“你想摸摸它吗?”在开头的一场戏中，安妮指着自己血迹斑斑的膝盖上刚出现的痂问詹姆斯。詹姆斯愿意，但又不敢，后来，作为一种不寻常的求爱方式，他主动提出要帮她梳理那乱成一团和有虱子的头发。

拉姆塞最令人震惊的成就之一便是描绘了这对伙伴之间纯洁的性友谊——令人吃惊的是，他们的性欲几乎是奇迹般地从未被拿来利用（为了获取某种震撼性的价值）。詹姆斯和玛格丽特·安妮被允许拥有彼此好奇和性感的身体，但这些身体却没有被性化。在他们裸体出现的一个场景中，在詹姆斯进行虱子处理后，就好像摄像机正在尽一切可能来中和视觉内容 —— 四分之三的镜头捕捉到了她肘部以下的身体，玛格丽特·安妮有条不紊地脱下衣服去洗澡，背对着镜头。在她的右边，詹姆斯正低头盯着手里的那块药皂，偶尔偷瞄她一眼。为了更好地帮她洗头发，他脱下衣服进入浴室，一场水战随之而来，双方在对方的鬃毛上涂上泡沫，变成莫西干发型。“我要小便，”她说着走出去上厕所。詹姆斯继续向她泼水，听到她的小便声咯咯地笑着。在最后一个镜头中，她也在回笑，画面有意地不去捕捉她的乳房。

国家的权力，或者更准确地说，它对权力的放弃，就像从孩子们头上剔除的虱子一样，潜伏在表层以下。在这个住宅空间中，没有人因为他们悲惨的处境而受到指责或被妖魔化，也没有人指责或妖魔化那些自我疗愈的方法，正是这些方法才可能会让角色活到下一天。电视屏幕上的记者的口音如此清脆，如此英国，想到他们是来自同一个国家，这样的反差真是令人惊讶，“虽然双方都不愿意公开这么说，很明显，正是威胁要动用军队才使罢工领导人做出让步。清理这堆垃圾意味着清洁工将获得数千英镑的奖金和加班费，这是对他们罢工九周的补偿......”（记者）

詹姆斯和玛格丽特·安妮坐在沙发上看着午间新闻，用着和身型不搭的浴巾吃着白面包片。他们一声不吭，同时眨着眼睛；电视里描绘的内容看似与他们无关，实则又与他们息息相关。在整部《鼠捕者》中，公屋居民并没有对系统性的不公表现出积极的愤怒，而是故意漠不关心，他们知道他们的一言一行都不会产生巨大的改变。在电影的背景下，当涉及到他们个人生活的结果时，这种可怕的剥夺权利赋予了他们一种纯真性，或者至少是无罪的感觉。

反映城市（或郊区）白人贫困的电影作品少得可怜，对于任何有才华或良好职业道德的人来说，阶级只是一个可渗透的边界——《捕鼠者》完全拒绝对穷人进行道德化或陈词滥调式的说教，这可能会让人感到非常不安。通过这种方式，拉姆塞为肖恩·贝克（Sean Baker，1971，美国导演）2017 年的《佛罗里达乐园》（The Florida Project）等影片奠定了基础，后者记录了一个年轻女孩与她的性工作者母亲在迪士尼世界外的一家汽车旅馆里生活的经历。

《捕鼠者》电影剧照。

就像在《佛罗里达乐园》中一样，一个孩子能想象出一个比现实世界更奇妙、更温馨的世界，这是《鼠捕者》的核心精神——这种精神在一个令人愉快的分离场景中显现，一只小白鼠和一个红气球不仅逃离了公寓住宅，而且完全离开了地球。拉姆塞本人回避了这样一种假设，即这部电影对贫困的残酷描述必然会被贴上一个真实的标签。她在1999年接受《IndieWire》采访时表示：“很多人都把这部电影误解为社会现实主义，但我不这么认为。我尽量避免那些陈词滥调。说实话，我试图深入到这些场景的心理，探究为什么我们要这样拍摄，为什么我们要这样看待它，试着深入了解它的表层之下，深入到这个男孩（詹姆斯）的内心深处。”

在《鼠捕者》虚幻的最后一幕中（既华丽又极度令人印象深刻），吉莱斯皮一家行进在一片开阔的田野上，这也是詹姆斯在参观一处空置的房屋建筑工地之前，曾逃到郊外的那片田地。父亲在前面引路，抬起一张白色的小沙发，大麦沙沙作响。母亲抱着一个白色的娃娃屋。白色的天空到处是鸟儿。在队伍的后面，安妮-玛丽凝视着一面镜子，镜子里捕捉到了她在阳光下闪烁的脸庞。在她身后，她的哥哥坐在椅子上。在电影的最后，当看着他所爱的人朝着一个更美好的家园的希望前进时，詹姆斯第一次张开嘴微笑了。

《捕鼠者》电影剧照。

欢迎关注我的微信公众号：ABAGo

Ratcatcher is the first feature-length film by British female director Lynn Ramsay. Since being released in 1999, it has won lots of awards at various film festivals, because of not only the delicacy of its shooting but also its profound reflection on British society in the 1970s.

Fig 1 The death of James' friend 0:06:33

This contemporary film’s realistic focus on the working class inherits the spirit of social realism in the British New Wave in the 1950s and 1960s. At that time, on the one hand, the British economy was devastated by the war, the middle class was weakened and the working class appealed to a fair and stable social environment (Winson, 2013, p. 22). On the other hand, the success of the Soviet Union has raised people’s doubts about the capitalist system. Hence, the image of the “angry young men” began to appear in literature and film, usually showing the discontent of the working class with class society (Luo, 2019, p. 24). The films of this period are known as British New Wave and social realism, or working-class realism from the content, poetic realism from style.

Furthermore, the Labor party, which represented the interest of the working class, began to dominate in parliament, and strongly promoted nationalization and welfare policies. However, after some degree of economic recovery, the defects of the welfare system unveiled gradually and led to stagflation (Winson, 2013, pp. 5-6). Until 1975, Margaret Thatcher of the Conservative party came to power and advocated neoliberalism, cutting welfare spending, and encouraging market competition (Scott-Samuel et al, 2014, p. 54). The British economy was boosted but also brought a widening of the class division and the decline in the living quality of the working class. Therefore, in the 1980s, British social realism was revived and lots of films focusing on the working class appeared again (Shafer, 2001, p. 9). The story of Ratcatcher happens in 1973 and reflects the life of the working class at the end of the welfare society, many of the details in the film are closely related to the social background at that time.

l Laborers and Rats

Rats is perhaps a metaphor for laborers. The welfare system provides enough living security and seriously discourages the laborers’ enthusiasm for work. The traditional virtue of labor is replaced by the lazy pleasure of consumerism (Zhang & Lin, 2018, p. 40). In the film, James’ father is a representative of the working class, sleeps all day instead of working, indulges in TV, beer, and football. His only wish is for the committee to allocate a new house.

Fig 2 James' father is watching TV 0:19:24

Moreover, any attempt to reduce welfare will cause public discontent, like this cleaning workers’ strike. The garbage in the streets and the television news reports all hint at this situation.

Fig 3 The report on the strike 0:12:47

Under this circumstance, tax revenue falls but welfare spending stays high. The government is in a passive position and the national economy is in a downturn. The working class does not create social value but lives in the burrow of the welfare system like the rat. The strike in the film leads to a chaotic community where rats live with people, implying they are homogenous, dirty, poor, and living at the bottom. The ratcatcher is referring to the coming Thatcher reforms, to the abolition of the welfare state and the elimination of the welfare-dependent working class. At the end of the film, the army, representing the government, is deployed to clean up rats and rubbish, while residents shout abuse upstairs.

Fig 4 The army is cleaning up the rats 1:20:02

l Males and Soccer

As a female director, Ramsay pays deep attention to gender identity. The identity of the male is lost at that time. When livelihoods depend on welfare, the role of men as the source of income is weakened. By contrast, when the center of life moves from society, the public sphere, to family, the private sphere, consumerism overwhelms the culture of the working-class, the status of the female is promoted (Zhang & Lin, 2018, p. 40). Therefore, for the male, on the one hand, they feel a sense of marginalization in this loss of identity, so they try to acquire a sense of self-satisfaction through a kind of arbitrary, which includes contempt for the female and arrogance towards their juniors, such as James’ father slaps his wife when drunk or the teenagers humiliate Margaret and tease James and Kenny.

Fig 5 The teenagers are teasing James 0:31:44

On the other hand, soccer, as a sport that relies on unity and physical strength, becomes the last symbol of working-class culture, and the spiritual sustenance of the male. In the film, boys play soccer in the street, James’ father persistently gives James a pair of soccer shoes as a gift, and even the teenagers throw Kenny’s mouse back and forth like soccer.

Fig 6 The teenagers are teasing mouse 0:50:00

l Children and Water

In the Ratcatcher, children may be more like “angry young men”. The story is narrated from the perspective of James, a child. Compared with the frustration of adults, children’s psychological activities are more complicated. Vitality is a child’s nature, which is suppressed by a negative social atmosphere. The desire of young men to break through the social hierarchy by working hard is limited by a lazy welfare system, like carrying the death of a friend.

Fig 7 James suicides in the canal 1:27:55

Water is perhaps a metaphor for the welfare system. Water can either support life or deprive it. The bathtub full of water brings James happiness, but the endless sewage in the canal drowns his friend like an overdose of welfare, which is gently but fatal, so neither James nor his friend struggles in the canal.

Fig 8 James and Margaret play in the bath 0:59:57

Therefore, children are the only ones having hopes for the future, because the future is an escape from reality, which is the origin of the poetic element. The suburban house for James and the moon for Kenny, are all the places with poetic background music, and without water.

Fig 9 No water in suburb house 0:40:51

Furthermore, under this repression, children are eager to grow up and have a voice, so they imitate the elders. James tried to join the teenagers and control his sisters. Whereas, when the suburban house is locked and Margaret is still humiliated by the teenagers, James realizes his helplessness and gives up and suicides in the canal. But for Kenny, after being rescued from the canal, he joins the camp of ratcatcher.

Fig 10 Kenny is catching rats 1:24:25

Ratcatcher is a calm and slow film. What Ramsay expresses is not simple criticism of Thatcherism or sympathy on the working-class, but the two-sidedness of policies and their great impact on the public. After two decades of Thatcher's policies, it is worth wondering what Britain is and about to face.

Word Count: 1080

（excluding 84 words on remarks of figures）

l Reference List (APA)

Calderwood, A. (Producer). Ramsay, L. (Screenwriter/ Director). (1999). Ratcatcher [Motion Picture]. Britain: British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC).

Luo, X. (2019). 论英国新浪潮电影的“厨房水槽”现实主义美学特征 [the Realistic Aesthetic Characteristics of "Kitchen Sink" in British New Wave Films]. Journal of Guizhou University (Art Edition), 33(2), 22-26. doi: 10.15958/j.cnki.gdxbysb.2019.02.004

Scott-Samuel, A., Bambra, C., Collins, C., Hunter, D. J., McCartney, G., & Smith, K. (2014). The impact of Thatcherism on health and well-being in Britain. International Journal of Health Services, 44(1), 53-71. Retrieved from JSTOR Journals. Retrieved from //www.jstor.org/stable/45140692

Shafer, S. C. (2001). An overview of the working class in British feature film from the 1960s to the 1980s: from class consciousness to marginalization. International Labor and Working-Class History. (59), 3-14. Retrieved from JSTOR Journals. Retrieved from //www.jstor.org/stable/27672706

Winson, A. (2013). Social realism of British New Wava “Left” films: The working-class border character. (Master’s Thesis) Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database.

Zhang, J., & Lin X. (2018). 20世纪八九十年代英国工人阶级电影特征 [The characteristics of working class in British working class films in the 1980s and 1990s]. Movie Literature, (10), 39-41. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.0495-5692.2018.10.013