Name: 《血色將至》的解構之道 — 或任何電影！ (One Way To Deconstruct There Will Be Blood — Or Any Movie)
Uploaded: 2026-03-14T17:20:50.000Z
Duration: 7 min 22 s

基礎被動語態

Whenever I want to learn how a movie is put together, one of the first things I do is get a pen and paper and just count the shots.

每次我想知道一部電影是怎麼組合起來的，我第一個會做的事就是拿筆和紙，然後數鏡頭。

程度副詞

Seriously, it's not very technical and it's a bit tedious, but

說真的，這不是什麼很技術性的東西，而且有點無聊，但是

just tallying every time there's a cut forces you to see things in a different way.

只要每次有剪輯就記錄下來，會逼你用不同的方式去看待事物。

It kills the illusion just enough that the nuts and bolts start to come into view.

這會稍微破壞掉電影的幻覺，讓電影的結構開始顯現出來。

For example, let's take a look at Pete D. Anderson's There Will Be Blood.

舉個例子，我們來看看 Pete D. Anderson 的《血色將至》。

Already by the third shot, I noticed a camera technique that would be used again and again throughout the film.

在第三個鏡頭時，我就注意到一個貫穿整部電影的攝影手法。

Heavy emphasis on double and triple framing in single shots.

在單一鏡頭裡，大量運用了雙重和三重構圖。

Anderson and cinematographer Robert Elswit were clearly interested in making a movie comprised largely of long takes, but

Anderson 和攝影師 Robert Elswit 顯然對拍一部主要由長鏡頭組成的電影感興趣，但是

they keep up the momentum by collapsing multiple shots into one.

他們透過將多個鏡頭壓縮成一個來維持電影的動態。

Things never drag on or get too boring, which is definitely a consideration when your movie is two and a half hours long.

電影節奏從來不會拖沓或變得太無聊，這絕對是需要考慮的，畢竟你的電影長達兩個半小時。

In fact, by the end of the fourteen and a half minute dialogue free introduction, I was struck by the length of the shots and by how few there actually were.

其實，在長達十四分半鐘的無對白開場後，我就注意到鏡頭的長度，以及鏡頭數量其實很少。

And 14 and a half minutes divided by 73 means that each shot on average was about 12 seconds long.

而十四分半鐘除以 73，代表平均每個鏡頭大約有 12 秒長。

That's a really long average shot length by today's standard, and

以現今的標準來看，這是一個非常長的平均鏡頭長度，

something I wasn't expecting Anderson to keep up throughout the rest of the film.

而且我沒想到 Anderson 會在電影的後半段也保持這樣的風格。

This graph, by the way, showing that average shot lengths have decreased over the years, comes from the work of Barry Salt, who's been writing about film metrics since the 60s and 70s.

順帶一提，這張圖顯示平均鏡頭長度這些年來一直在縮短，是來自 Barry Salt 的研究，他從 60 年代和 70 年代就開始撰寫關於電影指標的內容。

And if you want to dive deeper into metrics like these, I highly recommend visiting his website Cinemetrics, where all kinds of data is listed out for literally thousands of movies.

如果你想深入研究這類指標，我強烈推薦你拜訪他的網站 Cinemetrics，上面列出了數千部電影的各種數據。

But I think the best insights come from doing the counting yourself.

但我認為最好的見解是來自自己動手計算。

For example, one of the things that occurs to you watching There Will Be Blood like this is that the value of a simple cut increases as the number of cuts decreases.

舉例來說，像這樣觀看《血色將至》時，你會發現一個簡單的剪輯，在剪輯數量減少時，它的價值反而會增加。

It's amazing how impactful a cut can be when you're not watching them happen at breakneck speed.

當你不是以極快的速度觀看剪輯時，一個剪輯能有多麼具影響力，這真的很令人驚訝。

I don't mean to say that films with more cuts are necessarily worse or better, just that a movie like There Will Be Blood finds a lot of power in a common cinematic device.

我並不是說剪輯越多或越少的電影就一定比較好或比較差，只是像《血色將至》這部電影，它從一個常見的 سين電影手法中，找到了很多力量。

你做出決定的那一刻，就是這樣。

It's in stark relief to the audience and there's a lot of a big spotlight on.

這對觀眾來說形成了鮮明對比，而且有很大的聚光燈照著。

With so few cuts, as Tikonor says, the contrast of each is dialed up considerably and Like Daniel Plainview, Anderson and Ticanor mine that contrast for meaning.

就像 Tikonor 說的，這麼少的剪輯，讓每個剪輯的對比度都大大提升了，而就像 Daniel Plainview 一樣，Anderson 和 Ticanor 也從這種對比中挖掘意義。

A lot of times it's literal cutting between dark frames and bright frames or loud moments and quiet ones.

很多時候，這是在黑暗畫面和明亮畫面之間，或是安靜時刻和吵雜時刻之間進行的字面上的剪輯。

Just a quick side note, this sequence right here, by the way, shots 256 to 263 are the quickest cutting in the film by far.

順帶一提，這裡的這段畫面，鏡頭 256 到 263 是這部電影裡剪輯速度最快的一段，遠遠超過其他地方。

Anderson used so few shots that Tickenor had to find ways to artificially add more cuts to build up the momentum of this moment.

Anderson 使用的鏡頭非常少，所以 Tickenor 必須想辦法人工增加更多剪輯，來累積這個時刻的動能。

You can actually see that shots 258 and 260 are just alternate angles of the shots that came before them.

你其實可以看到，鏡頭 258 和 260，只是前面鏡頭的交替角度而已。

其他時候，這種對比是個人的。

If you wanted to suggest that two characters were different sides of the same coin, for example, arch rivals, but

如果你想暗示兩個角色就像同一枚硬幣的兩面，像是死對頭，但是

One tracking into a character mumbling to himself bathed in light.

一個是追蹤一個角色在光線下喃喃自語。

Another tracking out from a character mumbling to himself covered in shadow.

另一個是追蹤一個角色在陰影中喃喃自語。

What I realized after a while is that there's a domino effect.

我後來意識到的是，這有一種骨牌效應。

Longer takes mean more impactful cuts mean more attention to composition.

更長的鏡頭意味著更具衝擊力的剪輯，意味著對構圖的更多關注。

If you want your framing to mean something, then your cuts have to mean something.

如果你希望你的構圖有意義，那麼你的剪輯也必須有意義。

Because the cut is where the viewer really sees the framing.

因為剪輯是觀眾真正看到構圖的地方。

And they see it with a fresh memory, almost an afterimage of a the frame that came before.

而且他們看到的是一種新鮮的記憶，幾乎是前一個鏡頭的殘像。

And if you want your cuts to mean something, then you have to use them sparingly and with care.

如果你希望你的剪輯有意義，那麼你必須謹慎且節制地使用它們。

Every single shot is filled with a kind of anticipation because these cuts are registered consciously on the viewer's mind.

每一個鏡頭都充滿了一種期待感，因為這些剪輯會被觀眾有意識地記住。

We're all waiting for the next one to come.

我們都在等待下一個鏡頭的到來。

這裡的周圍一切都可以消失嗎？

T.T. anderson knows that anticipation is just a form, form of focus.

T.T. anderson 知道期待感只是一種形式，一種專注的形式。

And he's great at channeling that heightened focus toward the performances.

他也很擅長將這種高度專注引導到表演上。

When you have an actor as magnetic as Daniel Day Lewis, the longer the take, the more you hang on his every word and pause.

當你有一位像 Daniel Day Lewis 這麼有魅力的演員時，鏡頭越長，你就越會專注在他的一字一句和停頓之間。

我看見了人性最黑暗的一面，Henry。

I don't need to look past seeing them to get all I need.

我不需要看透他們，就能得到我需要的一切。

Watching this movie, I noticed that conversations like this are the place with the most frequent editing on average.

看這部電影時，我注意到像這樣的對話場景是剪輯最頻繁的地方。

這是鏡頭、反鏡頭的必要手法。

但即使在這裡，一切都是刻意為之。

This sequence, for example, is 16 shots in three and a half minutes.

舉例來說，這段場景在三分半鐘內有 16 個鏡頭。

Ticanor holds firm on the wide until Eli makes the key comment.

Ticanor 堅持使用廣角鏡頭，直到 Eli 說出關鍵評論。

Now, of course, within that are we're gonna develop a lease.

那當然，其中我們會發展一份租約。

He cuts in, but only a little, while Daniel thinks he's still dealing with the father.

他插話了，但只是一點點，而 Daniel 還以為他還在跟父親談判。

The scene locks on close ups as they battle back and forth, and

場景鎖定在特寫鏡頭，他們來回較勁，

though I don't know for sure, it looks a lot like Ticanor extended the silences here to augment the intensity.

雖然我無法確定，但看起來 Ticanor 似乎拉長了沉默來增強張力。

Giving the shots breathing room on both sides of the dialogue.

讓鏡頭在對白兩側都有喘息的空間。

Far from making the scene drag dials up the emotion considerably.

這一點也沒有讓場景拖沓，反而大大增強了情緒。

This is something Anderson does throughout the film.

這是安德森在整部電影裡都會使用的手法。

Close ups are used again and again for moments of silence, just as much for important pieces of dialogue.

特寫鏡頭被反覆運用在沉默的時刻，就像運用在重要的對白一樣。

Pete Anderson, like the Coen brothers, is great at casting for faces, and

皮特·安德森，就像柯恩兄弟一樣，非常擅長選角，

he wants us to watch them as much as listen.

他希望我們能像聽一樣，多看看他們的臉。

And of course he wants us to watch Daniel Plainview the most, who corrodes with bitterness across a series of close ups, even as he finds success in the solitude that he craves.

當然，他最希望我們看的是丹尼爾·普蘭維尤，他在一系列的特寫鏡頭中，被苦澀侵蝕，即使在他尋求渴望的孤獨時，也找到了成功。

I drink the blood of lamb from Bandage tract.

There are 678 shots and there will be blood over two and a half hours.

《血色將至》有 678 個鏡頭，片長兩個半小時。

That means that each shot is 13.3 seconds on average, more than the introduction.

這表示平均每個鏡頭有 13.3 秒，比片頭還長。

The movie is remarkably consistent on this front.

這部電影在這方面表現得相當一致。

Each hour or half hour taken alone will average somewhere around 12 to 14 seconds.

每小時或每半小時單獨來看，平均大約是 12 到 14 秒。

Maybe this is what gives the movie its steady but unrelenting pace, the feeling that you're watching a train you can't stop.

或許這就是這部電影步調穩定卻又無法阻擋的原因，讓你感覺在看一列停不下來的火車。

There are tons of ways to deconstruct a movie, but

有很多方法可以拆解一部電影，但是

it's amazing what you can learn just from looking at the shots one by one as they go by.

光是看著鏡頭一個一個過去，你就能學到很多東西，這真的很厲害。

For many of us, loving a film means wanting to know how it works with the spirit of an engineer.

對我們許多人來說，愛一部電影就代表想知道它是如何以工程師的精神運作的。

We take it apart, twist it, turn it, bend it, and put it back together.

我們將它拆開，扭轉它，翻轉它，彎曲它，然後再組裝起來。

或者至少我們是這麼試著做的。

A great movie will never give up all its secrets, but it will give up some of them.

一部偉大的電影永遠不會透露所有祕密，但它會透露其中一些。

This episode was brought to you by the Great Courses Plus.

本集由 Great Courses Plus 贊助播出。

The Great Courses plus is an on demand video learning service, which basically means it's got around 7,000 on online video lecture series from some great professors about all kinds of subjects.

Great Courses Plus 是一個隨選視訊學習服務，基本上它有大約 7,000 個線上影片講座系列，由一些很棒的教授講解各種主題。

Math, history, archaeology, art, you name it.

數學、歷史、考古學、藝術，你想得到的都有。

One that I think you should really check out is called the Inexplicable Unsolved Mysteries by Neil Degrasse Tyson, which is super heady and interesting and it's taught by Neil Tyson, which is all you should need to know.

其中一個我認為你應該好好看看的，叫做「無法解釋的懸案」，由 Neil Degrasse Tyson 主講，內容非常深刻有趣，而且是由 Neil Tyson 主講，這點就夠你知道了。

If you go to thegreatcoursesplus.com nerdwriter or click the link in the description, you can get a 30 day free trial.

如果你到 thegreatcoursesplus.com/nerdwriter，或是點擊說明裡的連結，就可以獲得 30 天的免費試用。

After that, annual memberships are $14.99 a month and monthly memberships are 9.

之後，年費會員是每月 14.99 美元，月費會員是每月 9.