浴火鸟

爱是时刻都想要和那个人在一起谢尔盖在俄罗斯剧院大学里的这句话真的诠释了他一生对待爱情和罗曼的态度。

整部剧我边看边哭他们真的生错了时代和地方，可惜谢尔盖的原型在过世之前也没有等到俄罗斯对同性恋改变态度的那一天谢尔盖的原型没有孩子，也没有被记载的伴侣，士兵真的用一生来怀念年轻时候遇到的军官冰冷的体制和严厉的法律也没能阻止他们暗处滚滚燃起的深情，整部剧最感动我的地方是谢尔盖一直都在清醒地看着自己在一段不可能有结局的感情里沦陷。

在罗曼的婚礼上那句I try so hard to forget you. but I can't还有在索契谢尔盖靠在罗曼身上说我害怕这是一场梦，我害怕失去你那两个片段全剧最戳我。

这部剧诠释了背弃全世界也要相拥的勇气和爱情，某种程度上它的矛盾挺像free fall这部电影蛮像。

遇到需要背弃世俗去爱的人你是选择继续背负责任，规避世俗风险过一生还是free falk。

我很佩服能够用一生诠释责任感的人，同时也永远被free fall的勇气和爱意感动。

我最难过的是想到在罗曼的婚礼上谢尔盖质问罗曼你爱她吗？

罗曼最后对谢尔盖坦白这是为了保护他。

其实谢尔盖从来都不需要罗曼用婚姻换来的所谓保护，他一直都有罗密欧对爱情的勇气和执着。

可惜没有如果第一次劫后余生

第一次，关系的深入。

在边境突遇北约巡逻兵后，初次亲密接触，两人迅速站上“一垒”和“二垒”

“死里逃生”的Roman主动寻求爱吻，谢盖尔最初闪躲，最后十指紧扣深情拥吻

谢盖尔迎来了人生第一场波罗的海的“春雨”

海滩边 礁石后

两人赤身裸体，“坦诚相对”

两架飞机同时横空“发射”，迫不及待奔上“三垒”一切都来得那么迅猛，让人根本无法招架热恋带来的悸动。

第一次被迫疏离回到营中，却因匿名举报信被少校“盘问审查”，两人关系被迫第一次疏离第二次死里逃生

第二次，关系的恢复。

谢盖尔，寻找到“劫后余生”独处的Roman。

Roman深情得吻着谢盖尔的手，像只无助的小动物，寻求安慰

两人关系进一步升华至“本垒”

开启彻底的肉体欢愉

灵与肉的结合，“负距离”的体验

连蹦跶带小跑，马上过上了二人夫夫甜蜜生活第二次被迫疏离少校的“突击检查”，却让两人的关系再次迅速冷却。

第三次双向奔赴

婚后，Roman对谢盖尔的“念念不忘”

双向奔赴

终于等来了两人，索契旅行的“终有回响”

此刻便是永恒边境巡逻敌兵、执行飞行任务的险象环生、Roman世俗生活的“圆满”，一步步推动了两人关系和感情的深入。

少校的一次再一次威胁、Roman妻儿的“回归”，一次次使两人关系面对思考和时间，恢复理智后，两人的感情却无处安放。

终语如果浴火鸟在自由的天空得以重生，Roman和谢盖尔的关系是不是会再度“升华”到极致，“死生契阔”，让他们再也不会分离。

就让他们定格在人生第一次约会的剧场里，彼此一见倾心，互相陪伴

人生若只如初见--分割线--“因为经典故事里的角色不是完全理智的他们是鲜活的、呼吸的、有感受的生灵他们细腻而脆弱也会因为一些事心潮澎湃我希望你们能够捕捉住这份悸动用心和灵魂去感受”正是电影里这样令人起鸡皮疙瘩的一段旁白，也是我最爱的一段台词，成就了Roman和谢盖尔最美丽的“双向奔赴”，成就了彼此人生的高光时刻。

有温度的共同生活

柴静说，在没有光的地方没有爱，只有性。

我认为电影里面同妻，是环境社会的逼迫。

强制性的让人病态分裂，扭曲。

反观现在整体大环境的改善。

压迫的锁链虽消失不见，但也没有走出穹顶。

锁链消失的同时，好像也随之消失了什么东西。

以数字10为选择的核心，停留且沉沦于器官的化学反应，我们幸福太多，悲伤太多。

——————关于导演故事很长，明显不是以票房为主要目的，更像是对这个故事纪念和记录。

（当然票房肯定是有考虑过的）个人非常非常喜欢导演安排的一些细节。

这一组截图是他们在索契度假的情节导演这里给了鸽子一个特写，非常细腻的表达出了当时平和温柔的氛围，又呼应了当时战争的背景。

主人公只有在这个时候才能找到内心的平静吧。

后面又给了一个鸽子飞走的镜头。

暗示两人的美好转瞬即逝，又暗示着主人公无法强制留住这份爱，又与后文中，罗曼去世他们的爱情永恒呼应。

（可能是我过度解读了，但是我真的很喜欢导演留这些有趣的细节）重现了故事的全貌，导演几乎没加入自己的想法理解。

精巧的细节布置和分镜安排。

每个镜头里的细节都有自己的作用。

恰到好处的氛围把控。

最后再加上演员的演技和颜值。

光靠这些，它就注定不会是一个玛丽苏烂片。

个人觉得美中不足的是电影中女主路易莎形象并不是很鲜明。

2021年12月28号。

资源可私大家可以去ins上联系罗曼@zagorodniioleg。

会回私信的！

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.

1970年的苏联对于同性中的感情是禁止且规定了相关刑法。

纵而使两个相爱的人被世俗狠狠地压在了深不见底的黑暗中。

“黑色的玫瑰和荆棘，微笑与泪水，它们种在一起，互相缠绕。

” 片头的一句旁白，交待了这份复杂而注定没有结果的感情。

“一个永远不会出现的时刻，犹如一个逃避世界的幽灵……” 谢尔盖得知罗曼的婚礼后，他不知道该如何处理这段感情 ，他最后的挣扎，罗曼的一句她怀孕了，使谢尔盖崩溃……唯一的选择是逃离与忘却“so hard ”这段感情，我努力尝试过忘却它………他们在契索的那段画面，让观众沉迷于其中，谢尔盖的爱胜过了罗曼对他的伤害，两人无忧无虑的样子却始终逃脱不了现实。

圣诞节那天，路易莎的到来，使一切烟消云散，谢尔盖独自出门，买了一颗圣诞树。

当路易莎到来时，他见证了罗曼的生活：活泼可爱的孩子，相爱的夫妻，一个幸福洋溢的家庭，与自己相比呢？

又能算什么。

当路易莎问：“谢尔盖，你有没有遇到生命中特别的人？

” “罗曼……还有你。

”谢尔盖的话亦真亦假，他知道，他们之间的爱是不见天日。

最终，谢尔盖选择了逃避，为了罗曼，也为了所有人。

“罗曼，我们之间的爱，只能存在于没有时间与思想的地方，你不该再来找我了………” 再次回来时，谢尔盖收到了罗曼离开时的信：“谢尔盖，我没什么可考虑的，我不会再次伤害我爱的人，不会再分裂自己，去属于每个人……” “谢尔盖，说和做，思考和生活，是不同的………”“谢尔盖，我选择了让我自由的地方，是天空，Forget me，我将永远和你在一起。

” 画面的接近尾声时，谢尔盖走到了他们曾经游泳的地方，此时，已经一片冰凉……如同他们之间的爱，无论过程多么热烈，结果都会凄凉。

仅仅是因为人们眼中的世俗与规矩。

“love is love”爱亦是爱，谢尔盖对路易莎说：“我们之间的爱不逊于你的爱”。

尾声时，谢尔盖，身处于剧院中心，而舞台上的戏剧，正是当年罗曼带他观赏的第一部戏剧“火鸟” 罗曼站在谢尔盖身旁，慢慢的离去。

犹如他从没来过谢尔盖的世界，或是说，这段感情从来没有存在过…… 如开头一样，它是不见天日的…… 如果没有现实生活中老年谢尔盖的叙述《A Tale About Roman》关于罗曼，我们也许永远不会知道这个发生于1970年代两个苏联军人的爱情。

爱亦是爱，它胜过了一切，无论是同性还是异性，它们都存在，是不可抹去的。

根据真实故事改编，还原真实是最大的尊重，在那样的背景、环境和身份下，电影所演绎的很真实了，所以不能说它老套。

片中经常出现的男孩潜泳场景，应该就是后面 Sergey 向 Roman 讲述的关于好友 Dima 的事：Dima 被发现，惨遭其父的毒打和辱骂，但是 Sergey 当时选择了 run away，并最终失去了 Dima，Dima 的死亡成了他内心永久的阴影与伤痛。

他害怕失去。

第一次床第之欢后，Roman 送予了 Sergey 战机模型并说：“For you. So you won’t forget me.”，到后面 Roman 事故离世，Sergey 探访 Luisa 母子并留下战机模型（给 Roman 儿子），即使情物已不在，但爱在心上，怎么可能会忘记啊。

就像最后 Roman 信中说的：“I shall always think of you, Sergey. I will always be there with you.”。

片中有一幕 Sergey 和同学交流，“How does true love behave?” “You can’t stop thinking about the other person. You have to be with them no matter what.”，多年后即使已婚的 Roman 还是会想法设法去见他， 表面拒绝但终究内心还是无法抗拒 Sergey，两人在火车车厢的相视一笑，这才是所谓的双向奔赴吧。

在这种背景、环境和身份下，Roman 的做法似乎情有可原，是能被理解的，他必须作出牺牲，他无法做出选择，正如他说的：“I have to choose the only place where I still feel free. The sky.”，天空是他唯一的自由。

有颜有肉，取景美，摄影也美，真实的禁忌之恋。

谢尔盖一名陷入困境的应征者，他的最好的朋友路易，一位迷人有野心的基地指挥官秘书，以及一个胆大的年轻战斗机飞行员罗曼，三者之间如何形成危险的三角恋爱关系。

在好奇心的驱使下，他们开启了禁忌之恋，在暧昧与欺骗之间，爱情与友谊的界限开始模糊。

随着罗曼的职业生涯受到威胁，谢尔盖被迫面对自己的过去，而路易莎也努力使家人团聚。

在围城之内，他们冒着失去自由和生命的危险，面对克格勃不断升级的调查，他们之间的命运会走向何方？

简单说是军营里由一卷胶卷开始的故事。

你觉得他怎么样？

-我觉得他和别人不一样。

-我也觉得他和别人不一样。

好吧，渣男真帅啊。

同妻在和罗曼的相处中，一点都没有察觉什么吗？

她的确得到了心爱的人作为丈夫，还有孩子的父亲。

如果以女主的视角拍一部片子，未必她和罗曼就不像真爱。

这部片子的男主看着像是得到了罗曼的真爱，不过后来他和罗曼在沙滩上，最幸福地晒着太阳的时候，依然害怕这是一场随时会醒来的美梦。

罗曼的死最后使所有人被迫归于平静。

影片总体对罗曼的心理刻画不算深入，或许只是以他的死，来隐喻罗曼的痛苦未必亚于另外两个人。

（可惜，死亡类似于逃跑，所以令人觉得这个结局有点儿不是滋味）这三个人是按照各自的方式爱着和痛着。

现实最大的悖论是，你最爱的人，最想做的事情，最需要的生活环境，往往无法刚好协调得天衣无缝，拼成一张完美的拼图，甚至它们会互相冰冷地撕扯你的心，让你日夜不能安宁。

真爱是什么呢？

大概就是这样的撕扯中，心里最痛的地方。

痛的起因往往是最无可替代的浪漫。

那段岁月，那些人，那些人里的那个特别的人。

Him。

And you, and ...现实让你最终说出很多人的名字，你总是需要很多名字，而你永远无法忘怀，那个让你脱口而出的第一个名字。

在107分钟里，并没有火焰。

相反，水一直在影像中。

谢尔盖童年噩梦的幽蓝深渊，潮湿森林里的拥吻，让照片显形的一框静水，海边礁石后的躲藏，冰封的海边……水，作为火的对立者，在处理上达到了平衡。

因为谁都知道，火焰是情欲的，发源于内在的美好欲求。

如果谢尔盖和罗曼时刻在暖光中，在一片炎热的红中释放炙热浓情。

反而会让人感到唐然，过于直接。

在水与火拉开的距离中，二者相互补衬的张力才能显明。

苏勋宗的七十年代是过于扎眼的背景，让人不得不想到其中可以包含的政治指涉。

然而如果明确了电影“爱”的属性，淡化政治影响和改变政治影响的影像诠释其实是一种高明。

谢尔盖和罗曼并没有因为身份遭到迫害，那些可能的阉割，入狱，流放都没有出现。

但冷战就是冷战，高压就是高压。

那种雾气是一直弥漫在四周的，只不过尚不让人溃烂绝望。

同的身份受到的现实压力是每个时代都会有的病症，在苏联时期更会多一层体制性的束缚。

通过罗曼这个人物的前期踌躇和后期结婚来隐性的释放出这种无处不在的压力信息，并不会让人因为一些直露的对同的打压场面产生不适和畏惧。

同样，如果电影过度执着于对政权批判，也会失去本身的感性力量。

相爱，结婚，忘不了彼此，一人先去。

这种情节很难不让人想到断背山。

但事实上，《断背山》和《请以你的名字呼唤我》开创了G群体电影的两个形象。

世俗的，诗意的，纯真的，美好的，压抑的，痛苦的，空灵的，阴差阳错的，在看之后的西方同电影时，会不自主地联想到这两个作品。

这其实是正常现象，也不能单纯讥为烂俗，老套。

如今电影最难的，其实就是创造一个新故事，一个新人物。

但是同的身份又不得不牵扯到面对外界的脆弱，这是这个群体的属性赋予这类电影的必然。

况且《浴火鸟》里有一些别样的设计，比如罗曼走后，他的妻子在悲愤无奈之下却抱住了她的“情敌”谢尔盖。

这一瞬的异样举止使得人看到了她复杂翻涌的内心。

一瞬间是不可言说的，但确实也最能击中人。

这个电影可以说让我在屏幕上看到了今年看到的最好的情欲镜头，这当然包括颜控的情绪加持。

看完电影当然为之感到难过，可你想这不过是一个故事，有导演编剧的故事。

真正把我击垮的是“真实事件改编”。

为虚幻艺术所触动的痛觉和为真实生活所触动的痛觉原本是来源于一处，究竟没有分别。

每个内心的底色有善良和美好的人都会希望在我们的存在宇宙之外能有一个独立的灵的时空。

那些人们生活中和笔下的遗憾可以在那个世界里补足，那个世界里有一片海，让短暂分离的鸟儿浴火再会，然后一起笑着飞上蓝天。

看得我非常生气。

Sergey的不成熟做法害死了自己的爱人，并且让同妻变得一生羞辱，孩子没有父亲。

真的希望他去陪葬！

虽然Roman也到了很多低级错误，但相比S的，不在一个伤害等级。

太气愤了😡一些小点也不能接受。

非要在结婚的时候两个人单独见面吗？

非要不锁门就让朋友撞见吗？

非要写封信表达自己的委屈，造成别人家破人亡吗？

搞得这么难看干什么！