浴火鸟

Tom Prior and Oleg Zagorodii in FirebirdDirector Peeter Rebane and leading actor Tom Prior (The Theory of Everything and Kingsman: The Secret Service) fought to bring Sergey Fetisov’s memoir of a secret love affair between two soldiers in the Soviet Air Force to the big screen. Co-written and co-produced by the pair, Firebird is a sensitive if not slightly melodramatic true story of gay love in Soviet-occupied Estonia. Firebird opens in 1977 with Sergey (Prior) serving his last few weeks of conscription. His girlfriend Luisa (Diana Pozharskaya) has started planning their life together, but Sergey soon becomes distracted by dashing fighter pilot Lieutenant Roman Medveyev (Oleg Zagorodnii).Looking like silver screen icons of the bygone age of Hollywood, the two men bond over their shared interest in the arts. Sergey once had dreams of becoming a stage actor and a night at the ballet seeing Stravinsky’s ‘Firebird’ brings the pair closer together. Their relationship is all clandestine late-night encounters and longing glances. Luisa hasn’t spotted their connection, obviously placing herself as the third member of a love triangle.An anonymous report exposing Roman’s indiscretions is a reminder that sexual relations between two men wasn’t just frowned upon, it could be punished by five year’s hard labour. The pair must make a decision between risking their lives in the face of escalating KGB investigations, or hiding their feelings. It’s desperately romantic, even if the film chooses melodrama over realism.Firebird’s narrative does take the most obvious turns. The weakness of this film is its reliance on obvious twists and cliched character development. Sergey embarks on an acting career, whilst Roman continues in the military. Tensions heighten when Roman embarks on married, domestic life with a woman whilst Sergey is more relaxed about his sexuality. Firebird leans less on the perilous action of being gay in the Soviet era, but instead on more clandestine affair cliché. Despite the obvious journey, it’s a beautifully realised account of love flourishing against a cold, loveless background. Prior and Zagorodnii look good together, Prior sweet and wide-eyed whilst Zagorodnii is handsome and chiselled. The camera zoom is on their faces, every micro-expression of longing picked up by the lens. The choice to use an international cast speaking English won’t please everyone. Using Estonian dialogue with subtitles may have added an authenticity because at times the Eastern Bloc accents are a little distracting;Parasite proved that if a film is good enough, people will happily read the subtitles.

Still from firebirdFirebird looks visually stunning. The intimate scenes are romantic, with late-night swims and dimly lit lovemaking. Some may criticise that the romance is sanitized with the camera moving away when the mood heats up. This is a film about stolen glances, not steamy nights. For a debut feature director who is famed for music videos and tour documentaries (he was also a Eurovision producer), Rebenae knows how to create an atmosphere. The production design should also be commended. The story can be told between any two men, in any part of the world, in any era in history. It is clear through sets, costume, and sound that this is a Soviet-occupied state in the 1970s. What Firebird lacks in originality, it makes up for in atmosphere. The threat this will all be taken away from them lingers over every scene together. In the daytime, the coldness of military life is reflected in the grey colour palette. The scenes transform from a sterile greyness to a warmness as they meet under dim lights, and in the reflection of the moonlight by the river.Firebird will be familiar to many romantic film fans. It relies on well used tropes that were better executed by Call Me by Your Name and Brokeback Mountain. Anyone looking for that uplifting gay love story should move elsewhere. While it’s a beautiful film, it brings nothing new to the library of LBGTQ+ movies.Yet somehow, it will be enough if someone watching this film can resonate with the story.

作者by Amelia HarveyAmelia is a freelance writer, frustrated novelist and occasional wrangling of international students. She is especially interested in LBGTQ culture and 1960s and 70s music. She also writes for Frame Rated, The People’s Movies and Unkempt Magazine, amongst others. Her favourite films include Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind, Moulin Rouge and Closer. You can find her on Twitter @MissAmeliaNancy and letterboxd @amelianancy

自从青宇后，我很久没看耽美一类的书籍和片子了。

最近工作压力超大，突然想看看这些片子了。

因为最近看了《军区大院》，所以入坑了军人的禁忌之恋，然后没想到，就搜到了一部冷门片。

军官和士兵之间的反复纠结终究无法永远在一起的悲伤。

谢尔盖和罗曼终究不能像单军和周海峰那样可以在一起，因为前者存在于现实，后者存在于那个虚构的世界。

所以这种感情只能存在于超于时间，超于空间的地方，最终罗曼牺牲去了天堂，说这样我们可以永远在一起了。

淡淡愤懑的忧郁突然压抑至极。

很久了，没看到这种一点点冲击心灵至压抑的片子了。

Firebird is an epic Queer love story set in a tense Soviet Union. This unconventional film followed the romance of Sergey, played by Tom Prior, and Roman, played by Ukrainian hunk, Oleg Lobykin.

Set in the 1970's Cold War, Firebird is an incredibly stylish film. The visuals feel authentic and true to its setting. But surprisingly, there are bouts of action, adding more thrill to a story that is already anxiety inducing. Another twist is that the film explores a love triangle between Roman, Sergey, and Roman's partner, Luisa- played by Diana Pozharskaya. This part of the world has always been incredibly hostile to LGBT+ people. It is common to see an attempt to erase Queer people from the histories and identities of post-Soviet countries. From the 'LGBT free zones' in Poland; the Gay Propaganda Laws in Russia - to the toxic political discourse in Hungary - 'Firebird' is a symbol of Queer existence throughout history. It is a statement that Queer love is not a modern and Western construct, but it is imbedded in the fabric of humanity. And this piece of history- beautifully shown in the film- is a shining example that the #TheNewEastisQueer, and it always has been.In this interview, the writer/lead actor, Tom Prior and director/writer Peeter Rebane talk about the true story of 'Firebird', its making, and what it was like to meet the real Sergey. EAST: Where did you first meet each other? TOM: I was doing some work in Los Angeles, and a film financier that I was meeting- by coincidence- mentioned that she heard about the story of Firebird- which was under a different name at the time- and promised to introduce me to Peeter. Then we basically connected and I read the script, and fell in love with it instantly. It was when the draft of the screenplay was at a very early stage, and that’s really where it began. EAST: Peeter, when did you first discover the story?PEETER: That was over 10 years ago. A friend of mine- who founded the ‘Black Nights Film Festival’ in Tallinn- she received the original story from a Russian journalist showing it around at the Berlinale, and she knew that I was looking for material for my first film. So I read it over a weekend at home, I literally cried and decided that I have to turn this into a film and then started writing for the first time ever.

EAST: ’The New East is Queer’ is a campaign to debunk the myth that Queer people don’t exist in Eastern Europe and Post-Soviet States. Yet here is a queer love story set in Soviet Russia. Were you conscious of this when deciding to make the movie? Did you feel a sense of duty to tell the story?PEETER: Foremost, I was taken a back by the universal love story. I was also fascinated and really surprised when I read the original manuscript that such a relationship could have actually existed in the Soviet airforce. Then we went on to interview people who served in the Soviet military in the 1970’s and found out that many such relationships existed, and we were also fortunate enough to interview Sergey in Moscow. But at the same time I do feel also that it is important to share this story in light of the real horrors that are going on in Russia and especially in Chechnya today. It is important to remind people about the importance of love and how such relationships have existed throughout the ages. TOM: For me its really important to share these messages. But we were very true when we said we made this film- not for political reasons- but for about love, love wins. Sergey’s character in the film is really about following his heart. There are terrible atrocities happening, but being able to make movies like this, we are effectively being that very change that we want to see in the world. EAST: How was Roman cast? PEETER: That was a really long process. We set a very clear intention to find the most authentic actors that are believable to the true story. So we did a world wide casting, and got 2,500 submissions for the role of Roman. For months we were casting in Europe and the UK, to Moscow. One day in Moscow, Oleg walked in the room and everyone was like: “That’s our Roman”. EAST: How was it working with Oleg?TOM: It was a really fascinating process as Peeter said. We just knew from the minute he walked in the room that it was right, this kind of presence. When you talk about casting in a film, you really are casting a person as you are a performer. He had this real presence and he was the nearest person that we felt was Roman, and so, our journey began. Because he is not a native speaker, at all, in fact he had a very small amount of English when we began the project. It has its challenges, and in some ways it actually helped, to a degree, because it meant that we couldn’t communicate as freely as we would, say in a modern day context in English- which serves the story in an amazing way. Because at the time there was no language around the subject matter. Today we are in a very liberal society where we can begin to scale that in a very easy and transparent way, but at the time there wasn’t that. So it bought a really interesting dynamic to the film. Working with Oleg was a real pleasure but it of course it had its challenges as well: cultural background differences, and things like that. But it was a really beautiful working relationship. EAST: Tom, you were a writer as well as an actor in ‘Firebird’. How did this come about?TOM: When Peeter and I met- and fell in love with the story- at that time we didn’t have the financing in place to make the film. So we made a teaser for the film, and the scenes that we selected for the teaser. I made some suggestions about how we might improve the script a bit, and the lines and the nature of the lines. I have a real sensitivity to being able to produce texts or language of how people actually speak- as oppose to how people one would think people speak- this is something I am quite sensitive to. So I made these few suggestions on how we might improve the script and that ended up several pages of notes and ended up as several weeks of work, which ended up being overall significant rewrites and redrafts and restructures- and doing lots and lots more research. Then by that point, the script was completely a different animal to what I first came to. So we took the strong elements of that and then imbedded in a lot more research.

EAST: Thats an interesting point. After stalking your Instagram its quite clear that you are a spiritual person and quite centred. Did these qualities help you in your writing or acting?TOM: Most definitely. For me this project has been quite extraordinary, in the sense of the level of depth that I have been able to get to. Writing the content, for sure, is a whole other level as a performer. Then also meeting the real Sergey, we interviewed him in Moscow, we also very tragically went to his funeral. He passed away in the time that we were developing the story, and it was a very surreal moment for me, to be at the funeral of a person whose life you have extended in the literary form, and who you will play in real life. So there were very strong moments during the time filming that there was this awareness that Sergey was with us, or certainly the energy. For me, having a real level of emergence within the project meant that the emotion came easily, or the stream of conscienceless, lets say. It was very profound and beautiful for the opportunity to do that as a performer. EAST: And when you met Sergey Fetisov, what were your impressions of him, and did these impressions influence the way you played or wrote about him? TOM: Very much so. It was an honour to meet him, and he was so very full of heart. He was a very heart-led man. You could tell that he had such a sunny persona, and despite having had a lot of trials and tribulations in love, he was bold and happy. So I bought that level of following your heart, and that bounciness to the performance- where I could - without making it seem to out of context at the same time. EAST: And for you Peeter, how was it meeting Sergey Fetisov, and did this impact the way you directed the film?PEETER: As Tom said, he was an amazingly warm and heartfelt person, considering what he had gone through in his life, and how these experiences had made him loving and not hating. I think he definitely informed how we developed the character, and it was an amazing treasure trove speaking to him about actual details, like: what were their favourite pieces of music; what were their favourite foods; which music they would play to each other; which books would they read; which theatre plays they went to see. It all kind of built a world, and helped us to be very authentic in directing and staging the film.EAST: Peeter, being from Estonia, was there anything about your heritage and personal identity that you bought to the project?PEETER: Definitely, when I was a very young boy I still recall the Soviet occupation, and our summer house was actually the airforce base where this story takes place. I have this distinct memory of my friend being on this bicycle and these two MiG’s (Mikoyan-Gurevich) flying overhead at maybe 150 feet, and us literally falling off the bicycles because the noise was so deafening. So I have a very strong personal connection, besides having grown up with this feeling of shame about ones sexuality, having to hide your true identity, and the surrounding environment lacking understanding and being ignorant. So, a lot of parallels for me. EAST: How much history is in the story?PEETER: I think its, well I don’t dare to say 100%, but I think its 99% historically correct. The events happening, the small details of the airforce base, the setting, we really made our upmost to make a film that looks and feels like the 1970’s could have looked and felt like.

EAST: And there seems to be a big military presence in the film. PEETER: From the directing perspective, we had amazing consultants. We had a retired airforce base, a retired Soviet airforce base commander, flight pilot, a person who worked in the command centre, who directed all the flights. We had a lot of people who literally went through the script, went through the dialogues, who were on the set with us, telling us to do it like this, or do it this way. We put trust in not making a Hollywood version of what someone envisages, but in thorough research. TOM: The intricacy of the details is very particular, I mean, even when it comes to the radio announcements, and things like that, and the calling in’s to the planes and the lights from the command centre and everything- its all very accurate. We did the best research to our knowledge, to make sure that it was as real as possible, and the same really with the job titles, the job roles. The military consultants in particular were very useful and an intrinsic part of the training for the performance: the way we would walk; the hand salutes; all this military realism that actually happened, and making sure that the attention to detail- our costume department were really great around that also. So, the military aspects of the film, even this accident, there was an accident sequence within the film as well, which was in the original story, and I was absolutely adamant we had to put it into the film, to give it this military flare, instead of having it simply as a backdrop, but actually as an action sequence, this was really paramount and important to me, to ground it into the real world. EAST: Any personal highlights from onset?Peeter: I think for me one of the most amazing shots was the last shot of the film. Without giving away too much, it lasts about 1.5 minutes, and the camera is going into Sergey, and technically it was huge challenge for our team to pull it off, but also performance wise, for Tom to act out all the different emotions, truthfully, being surrounded by 50 or 60 extras, and knowing that we can’t cut, and that this is all real time, one very long take. TOM: Its a very unforgiving shot, lets put it that way. I’m very proud of that moment, and what came through. It was one of those moments that I was speaking out earlier, where there was this profound connection. I started experiencing some very curious things, emotionally. It was like being show the end of ones life, but I was experiencing it in the real time, which was quite curious. For me, the highlight and more significant highlights of the film was really my personal growth. That to me is a huge success. As a measure of success, it challenged me emotionally, physically, spiritually, and now its a sort of standing point, as a physical manifestation of what one can achieve when there are so many odds against you and challenges and time limiting factors, and all those kind of things. So yeah, we can have a whole other discussion of that for the highlights. But we were so blessed, to have such a wonderful committed and loyal team who were willing to go way above standard hours, the commitment was astounding. EAST: Peeter, did you learn anything about yourself personally or professionally during this project?PEETER: Absolutely, first of all it was my first full length feature. I have done documentaries, but that’s a whole different game. Learning all the nuances of directing on the set of the feature, and actually doing a pretty challenging script. We shot in the air, under the water, in the baltic sea, staged Hamlet in theatre, staged the full production of Firebird, including costumes and choreography, dancers and sets- a lot of very specific scenes. It was very challenging and I had a lot of personal growth during this process, over the last couple of years. TOM: I think for me also, as I mentioned, the physical challenges, the stamina, keeping up your health, mental clarity and sharpness through longer days, and resilience through that. Some days there would be, 5, 6, 7, 8 costume changes, multiple different set environments, we would have to change them very quickly as well. I would be sitting on the train, where we would shoot the train sequences, and moving from one emotional state to another, within minutes, and the whole world of the character has changed and gone upside down in that time. So, to be able to tune in to that energy, that emotional change very quickly, was really amazing. And to also play a lead in a film, there is this overwhelming pressure that you can put on yourself, and to scale that, was for me, a real joy and a real challenge, at times. To stay centred, to stay focussed, and to know what we have got to do and what we are there to do, and yeah, this was a really beautiful example of change and growth, and long hours, knowing that you can do it, and you have got to get through it.

EAST: How relevant do you think the story is for todays audience?Tom: For me, the story is very relevant in terms of following your heart. We live in a world which is probably more divided than ever, with regards to health, with regards to beliefs and perceptions. It is a standing point for following your heart. Actually, if you choose to walk that path, its not necessarily going to be the easiest route, but its probably somewhat the most rewarding- in terms of being able to feel and develop as a person. The film is about following ones heart and ones desires against all the odds, and against the laws of the country and the environment in which somebody grows up in. I hope this is a standing point of inspiration to follow your heart, to love daringly, that would be my wish and hope for its relevance today. EAST: Do you have any plans to show this to Eastern audiences? Peeter: Absolutely, we will distribute the film across the world. We trust we will be at some festivals in the summer, also Autumn, late October- and end of the year we will have a wider distribution across the region. So, I guess we will see how the world is as we open, and depending on how much we will be in cinemas. But definitely, we will be on all major platforms across Europe. 'Firebird' premiered at the 2021 BFI Flare Festival on 17th March 2021 and is available to stream on the BFI Player until 28th March 2021.

很喜欢，看多了同性题材的电影电视剧之后，其实对于这类型剧已经有一点挑剔了，已经不是主角长得好看加上有床戏就能满足我了，但这部剧完全长在我的审美点上了。

角色都很有魅力，节奏把握的很好，给人一种文艺但又不拖沓的感觉，摄影画面很美。

看完之后其实心情有点伤感，虽然作为通讯录早已对于现实生活的偏见、压迫等等问题感到习惯了，但还是会情不自禁为剧中的三位主角感到悲伤。

三个人我都能理解，也为他们的悲剧感到伤心，但我不会去埋怨Roman或是Sergey，因为他们只是被大环境推着走的人罢了。

如果我是Roman、或是Sergey，我很难说我能做得更好（更符合大众的期望）。

当然时代还是稍微变好了一点，我也不是Roman，我不会也不支持骗婚。

最后Roman主动选择前往阿富汗也值得一提。

在（当时的）大众眼里男同性恋是变态、是怪异的、女性化的人（这在影片中也有体现），但Roman向死而生的勇敢证明了他是一名真正的勇士，绝对符合社会对于好男人的期望。

我想，如果同性恋可以合法地、不受偏见地结婚，他一定会是一名好丈夫。

所以我觉得Roman体现了一种态度，那就是我们每个人都不该被轻易贴上刻板的标签，而带着偏见去评价一个人也是绝对错误的一件事情。

”那片天空，是最后的自由之地“可是没有那个人能一直飘在天上看这个电影的过程，就觉得是很多人的真实写照尽管生活背景不同，可是这样的路却大差不差影片中的环境压抑，处处都是都同性的监控，甚至欺压这是摆在明面上的在当下呢？

不过是阴在暗处罢了甚少有人敢把那双十指相扣的手，暴露在阳光下这是长久长久以来的共同之处而这份爱而不得的伤憾，又何其相似小男主多帅啊，一眼万年的那种可是当他在婚礼上苦苦哀求的时候，说出那句”我用了很多方法，想要忘记你“这又是多少人的曾经呢其实很难评判，到底该不该与好友的男人走在一起该不该又踏上火车，坐在对面去重复过去，去加深伤害这很难评因为我们不是他们，因为我们也幻想过他突然出现面前，在一辆去往曾经的火车上等着我可是，绝大多数人没有我们都走散在人海里了

到底什么才是对的呢我不知道，至少现在不知道因为没有谁给我答案，也没有谁告诉我这条路该走向何方，或者该从哪截断我一直在自己找，自己定毕竟，这是自己选择的路，不怪什么人只是，看着这样的电影，看着男主在雪地里独行的背影很难不想到自己若世事太难，那自由之地又在何方？

太难受了，太难受了，何以想象是由真实故事改编，看完心里好难受。

片尾说13年Russia又颁布法律禁止homosexual propaganda，😫。

Luisa悲惨，失去爱人受尽欺骗；Sergey也悲惨，断断续续的往来，最后只是一纸信的告别；Roman也悲惨，大环境的网紧束着他，做出了选择，又与Sergey藕断丝连，内心分裂又迷茫，最终不复不再。

片尾说真实的Sergey逝世于2017年，在天堂里，他俩还会相遇吗。

真正的Luisa现在又怎样呢？

他们的孩子怎么样了呢？

片尾字幕演员表滚动完了，又出现那个当初来Roman住处检查、Sergey藏起来的长官，他吸了口烟，有什么寓意吗？

求热心豆友解答。

太难受了，但是是一部佳作，个人觉得甚至要比cmbyn的后劲还要大，加分项是Roman的颜和身材太好看，Sergey也是。

补充一点，其实想给4.5星，因为片中一些地方不自然，有些片段剪辑得让人难以琢磨。

啊啊啊感觉好的同影总与be沾点边，年纪大了都不敢看啊（这个还是我拖了一年才看的，烈焰焚币还不敢看😭）相信前路光明。

这是真实故事改编，俗套这种字眼不适合落在这个作品上面。

成年人也有纯爱。

罗曼说自己没办法分裂自己，说不想让自己心爱的人受伤。

所以，他往天空去。

《小王子》的作家圣埃克苏佩里也是飞行员。

那个年代飞机的安全性同现在的飞机，是无法比拟的。

那种冒着生命危险，依旧要像鸟一样展翅高飞。

为什么？

天空与圣埃克苏佩里而言，就是一场叛逆。

而对罗曼来说，天空是自由。

是独属于真正自己的片刻宁静。

至少他们都曾有过一时半刻不违背内心的选择，这就够了。

参考采访（豆友发的一篇影评）这部电影希望告诉我们，大胆的爱。

你的爱若坚定，则丝毫不比任何人逊色。

谢尔盖，没有路易莎的身份。

也没有和罗曼组成过家庭。

但他愿意在罗曼来找他的时候，放下身边的一切，坐上那辆和罗曼一起去远方的火车。

人生若是尽兴过，散场时也可以无憾。

最后路易莎的拥抱又代表什么呢？

和解？

同悲？

你心里的答案我就不得而知了。

黎明之美就在于它脱胎于最深的黑暗。

既然你都耐心翻到这里了～那我就再说几句吧你在妄想去批评他人之前，首先做的比你所评价的对象好。

不然会有人伤心的。

他有错，不该玩弄彼此的感情，更不该牺牲Luisa他也有错，不该越发肆无忌惮，也不该在后面坐上那辆火车。

但是情不自禁，这是Sergey对爱情的追求与付出，他愿舍弃一切，愿背负鄙夷目光。

Roman相信他也有尝试过放下，但是当两人身份对转，多年后他卑微的站在门外等Sergey时，就知道这段感情于他不仅是刺激和偷尝禁果这么简单。

如果有可能，相信他们在那小小的房子里真的会长相思首。

但是当看到这一段情景时，却总有一种在看甄嬛传甘露寺的感觉，随时下一秒幸福的泡沫就会被揭破一般，紧张而悲伤。

看过之后和朋友都相信，Roman是自杀的。

处于矛盾漩涡的中心，他背负的太多的，却又什么都放不下。

他的自傲，他的爱情，他的事业，他的身份。

至少最后，他可以英雄的牺牲。

如果不能同时落在那个人心里，他便选择留在天上，可惜也留下了两颗空荡荡的心。

那时候还太年轻，不知道所有命运赠送的礼物，早已在暗中标好了价格。

——题记一位迷人有野心的基地指挥官秘书谢尔盖，以及一个胆大的年轻战斗机飞行员罗曼，他们的缘分似乎冥冥注定，很难不被对方吸引。

军营中的爱恋，总是应该青涩地试探和小心翼翼，更何况是在上世纪七八十年代。

虽然暗藏威胁，可他们的爱情似乎得到了幸运女神的庇佑总能不被发现。

看着爱人，少年的眼眸中闪烁着动人的光泽。

罗曼替谢尔盖抵挡着来自上层的压力，他不忍心破灭少年的激情，但也深感力不从心。

谢尔盖离开军营时，两个人也没能见一面。

他选择忍受世俗的制约去结婚生子，但仍留恋于曾经的牵绊。

谢尔盖一直按照他们的约定，去戏剧学院努力学习表演，并期盼着罗曼来找自己。

日后再见，尽管世事难料，但他们一如既往地深爱着对方。

在那些相依相伴的日子里，也许他们都十分感谢自己和对这份感情的坚定。

谢尔盖道明自己害怕失去他，罗曼笑着安慰他自己就在这里。

未来不可预测，起码这一刻我们是开心幸福的。

虽然有些及时行乐的成分，但人生如果一直畏畏缩缩，那未免也活的太憋屈了。

新年时朋友聚会上两个人情不自禁跑到卧室拥吻，却被好友发现，好友说他们不是爱是恶心，谢尔盖悲愤交加却又无可奈何。

他想让那些偏见的人明白，爱一个人没什么可抱歉的。

罗曼爱谢尔盖，也爱他的妻子和儿子，他于心不忍伤害任何一方，辛苦地来回维持奔波，可不知不觉中两者却都被自己深深地伤害了。

圣诞节后，谢尔盖留下一封书信黯然离去，路易莎终于明白了真相和他大吵了一架。

他们知道的是罗曼对不起他们，自己很心痛，可他们不知道的是，这是自己与罗曼的最后一次相见。

罗曼是那么温柔又有责任感的人，他两者都想兼顾可到头来两者都失去了，疲惫到再也没有精力去道歉挽回，他厌倦了尘世的挣扎，也知道他们已经不会原谅自己了，他也不再奢求什么了，知道自己拥有过幸福，就足够了。

深知谢尔盖一直以来对感情的偏执，对此“我无法选择，因为害怕伤害我所爱的人。

我不能再分裂自己了，同时属于每个人。

”是他的回答。

他知道谢尔盖一定会责备他的离去，所以遗书中安慰自己的爱人——“我选择唯一的地方，在那里我仍然感到自由，是天空。

”谢尔盖那么爱自己，他一定会懂的。

“我将永远和你在一起”罗曼对任何人都不够残忍，唯独对他自己。

大雪纷飞，渲染着生离死别。

命运好像总是爱和人开玩笑，对于美好的事物，人们都会想尽办法贪心地拥有。

谢尔盖想和罗曼光明正大地在一起，罗曼想着顾及家庭和爱人，路易莎如愿以偿地结婚却怀疑着自己的丈夫。

似乎每个人都不知足，可人生就是这样。

要说什么下一世，生生世世，无穷无尽，都是如此，是人就会有欲望，只是像罗曼这样的人，下一世不管是作为丈夫还是作为情人，都莫要再让他受苦了。

首先我是一个退役军人，有感而发，希望看完🤲不知道大家有没有感觉这一类的电影看完给人的感受都基于、延伸于《call me by your name》。

我上学期大学里一个语文老师说为什么现代作家总喜欢写耽美文，就是因为男孩子和男孩子的爱情无论放在这个爱站队的当下社会，还是从前都是百般受挫的，结局基本上都是不美好的，这样的文字，比起甜甜的撒狗粮更能触动人心弦，所以导演估计也是为了冲掉观看电影后的受虐感，在电影中很多地方还是安排了一些令人会心一笑的桥段，这一点我觉得很好，因为电影确实很需要不同的情绪来提高受众群体的观影感，毕竟是这是电影，并不是像电视剧那样可以一件小事讲一集的。

其次，这是一个很长的真实的爱情故事，电影本身就已在尽善尽美的把故事的完整性和细节二者融汇贯通。

再说说角色的演技，个人看来三位主角演技都是在线的，有一些说人角色演技很直男，没有共情感，我觉得这是抛开环境去评论演员，首先我们要知道，时间是上世纪70年代，地点是苏联又是在部队，但凡把这三个要素随便换一个更自在一点的不那么压抑的，我都觉得主角就不会有被人说没有演技了。

不知道大家有没有观察过很多细节，电影中频繁的来演习，上校说不准男主讲那种笑话等等很多，这说明什么？

我以亲身经历告诉你，这是准备要dz了，这是一种很压抑环境，要去dz了！

兄弟，更何况他们是上下级关系，一个是高高在上的军官，一个是默默无闻的义务兵，期间的鸿沟，很难一时逾越，没有去部队的人也许真的很难感受这种等级制度极度森严的上下级关系，所以才会对他们的情感产生疑问，综上所述，演员所演的关系真的是恰到好处。

还有一些涉及伦理问题的，我不好评论，但是我觉得还是要去看他们当时所处的环境和人物的真实性格。

总之这部电影给我的感觉就是 捡到宝了